Direct Tax[Income Tax] Filing Of Form 10-IC Prior To Filing Of Return Not Mandatory, Delay May Be Condoned In “Genuine Hardship”: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: CELL COM TELESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSCase no.: WRIT TAX NO. 278 OF 2024The Allahabad High Court has held that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of income tax return is not mandatory and the delay...
Direct Tax
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.
Case Title: M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colony v. The Commisssioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 395 of 2007
The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that the findings of best assessment done by the authorities is perverse is on the assesee.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that “when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature.”
Case Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012
The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.
Case Title: U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Versus Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of Revenue Thru.Secy.Andors
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 16125 of 2018
While dealing with a writ petition for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), the Allahabad High Court has held that when the documents for TDS are provided by the assesee, the Assessing Officer must process the refund and cannot delay payment of refund in genuine cases.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held, “a taxpayer should not be left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who chooses to delay the payment of genuine refunds. Furthermore, as long as the assessee is able to provide documents proving that tax has been deducted at source, the same has to be accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot insist that the amount match the figures in Form 26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the amounts provided by the assessee through the proof of Form 16A.”
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 77 of 2025
While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
“While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the proceedings is a goal that all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities may pursue, at the same time, they may remain conscious of their non-negotiable commitment to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before such judicial decision making is achieved,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Indirect Tax
Case Title: Surender Gupta vs. Appellate Authority State Gst / Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1892 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to compensate the assesee Rs. Rs.19,22,778/- which was imposed on the assesee as tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner rented out his property in Gautam Budh Nagar(Noida). The rent received from the property was taxable under the GST Act. Petitioner duly deposited the one-time lease rent of Rs. 97,18,500/- and the tax of Rs.17,49,330/- with NOIDA. Petitioner pleaded that he filed his return under Section 39 of the GST Act. The tax deposited by the petitioner to NOIDA was not reflecting in the form GSTR-3B due to mistake on part of NOIDA.
Case Title: M/S Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the seller is a registered dealer at the time of transaction, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchasing dealer based on the subsequent cancellation of seller's registration.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once the seller was registered at the time of the transaction in question, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Further, the record shows that the registration of the selling dealer was cancelled retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 29.01.2020 and not from its inception which goes to show that the transaction between petitioner and seller was registered and having valid registration in his favour.”
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sethia (Deceased) v. State of U.P. and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 917 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.”
Case Title: Merino Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1406 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on Joint Commissioner SGST, Corporate Circle-1, Ghaziabad who had issued a show cause notice without specifying the date and time for personal hearing and had passed an order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creating a demand of more than Rs. 5 crore ignoring the specific request for personal hearing made by the assesee.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “Innumerable cases have come before this Court where show cause notices have been issued and ex-parte assessments made after the cancellation of the GST registration of the firm, based on uploading of notices on the portal, without ensuring personal service of the notices.”
Claims Of GST Department Are Barred Once Resolution Plan Is Approved: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1716 of 2025
Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, the Allahabad High Court has held that the claims of Goods and Service Tax Department are barred after the aproval of resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held, “In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process. The Supreme Court has categorically held the same as indicated above.”
Mandatory To Fill Part B Of E-Way Bill In Transactions After April 2018: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1559 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the assesee to download the complete E-way Bill including Part-B of the E-way Bill for transactions after April 2018. Distinguishing the earlier judgment of the High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others, and others, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,
“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was given to those assesses. It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the complete e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Only downloading Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 606 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 must be self-contained and mere reference to previous show cause notices is not sufficient.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 27.04.2024.”
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1386 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the authority on verification has mentioned the details of the goods found and verified the correctness of the invoices and the goods in transit, it cannot be permitted to change the stand later and say that the goods were not in accordance with the invoice.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”
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).”
Case Title: M/S Akriti Food Industry Llp v. State Of UP And 3 Others
Case no.: [WRIT TAX No. - 2070 of 2024]
While directing that the order under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 uploaded in the “Additional Notices and Tabs” on the GST portal be treated as the show cause notice, the Allahabad High Court observed,
“If in a decision making procedure adopted by the authority is de hors the provisions of the act or rules framed thereunder, it is liable to be rendered as flawed one.”
Case Title:- M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commercial Tax And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1177 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that the intention to evade tax is established by the fact that the goods in transit were not accompanied by e-way bill and the goods taxable at 18% were taxed only at 5%.
The Court held that after 2018, it was mandatory for the assesee to download e-way bill with goods in transit. “It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Subsequent downloading of e-way bill would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: M/S Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1022 of 2021
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the cogent material. The burden of proof is shifting to the department only in the re-assessment proceeding or subsequent proceeding not being the original proceeding. In other words, the assessee in the original proceeding is duty bound to bring the material on record in support of its claim but in the subsequent proceeding i.e. re-assessment proceedings, the burden shifts on the revenue.”
Case Title: S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3026 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there was no activity at the principal place of business of the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the invoices issued in favour of such assessee are fake.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and seeking release of the goods confiscated under Section 129(1)(a) by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Unit Khataul, Muzaffarnagar.
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.
Case Title: M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colony v. The Commisssioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 395 of 2007
The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that the findings of best assessment done by the authorities is perverse is on the assesee.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that “when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature.”
Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”
Case Title: Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.
Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST. Further, the notification will be required only if some exceptions and conditions are required to be carved out on the recommendation of the GST Council.”
[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High Court
Case title: - M/S Rajdhani Udyog v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3684 of 2025
While calling for personal affidavit from Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow explaining the conduct of the tax officers in the State in not following the orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Officers must know the law.
Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that, “While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.”
Case Title: M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 389 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Once actual movement of goods as well as payment of tax by the respondent authorities have been proved by the petitioner to which no rebuttal has been brought on record at any stage, proceedings under section 74 of the Act cannot be justified.”
Case Title: Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has issued notices to office of the Solicitor General of India and Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 127 of the Central and State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was issued an order under Section 127, which he allegedly came to know of in 2025. It has been pleaded that the orders were neither sent to the petitioner nor uploaded on the portal. Petitioner, in the writ petition, submitted that proceedings under Section 74 were initiated regarding transactions made by the petitioner with another assesee, which were later dropped.
Case Title: M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot be done merely upon issue of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and its earlier judgment in R.D. Enterprises v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “If the reason that provisional attachment is being done as proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act is allowed to stand, then in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid. The law as laid down in the abovementioned judgements makes it patently clear that a proper opinion has to be formed based on adequate reasons for such a draconian action to be taken.”
Case Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012
The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.
Case Title: S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3026 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there was no activity at the principal place of business of the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the invoices issued in favour of such assessee are fake.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and seeking release of the goods confiscated under Section 129(1)(a) by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Unit Khataul, Muzaffarnagar.
Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”
Case Title: Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.
Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST. Further, the notification will be required only if some exceptions and conditions are required to be carved out on the recommendation of the GST Council.”
[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High Court
Case title: - M/S Rajdhani Udyog v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3684 of 2025
While calling for personal affidavit from Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow explaining the conduct of the tax officers in the State in not following the orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Officers must know the law.
Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that, “While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.”
Case Title: M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 389 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Once actual movement of goods as well as payment of tax by the respondent authorities have been proved by the petitioner to which no rebuttal has been brought on record at any stage, proceedings under section 74 of the Act cannot be justified.”
Case Title: Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has issued notices to office of the Solicitor General of India and Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 127 of the Central and State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was issued an order under Section 127, which he allegedly came to know of in 2025. It has been pleaded that the orders were neither sent to the petitioner nor uploaded on the portal. Petitioner, in the writ petition, submitted that proceedings under Section 74 were initiated regarding transactions made by the petitioner with another assesee, which were later dropped.
Case Title: M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot be done merely upon issue of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and its earlier judgment in R.D. Enterprises v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “If the reason that provisional attachment is being done as proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act is allowed to stand, then in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid. The law as laid down in the abovementioned judgements makes it patently clear that a proper opinion has to be formed based on adequate reasons for such a draconian action to be taken.”
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.
Allahabad High Court Stays Rs.110 Crore GST Demand On Dabur's Hajmola Candy
Case Title: M/S Dabur India Ltd v Union of India and Ors
Case Number: WRIT TAX No. - 4709 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court on October 10 stayed a ₹110 crore GST show cause notice issued to Dabur India Ltd. over the classification of its Hajmola Candy Tablets.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the interim order in a petition filed by Dabur challenging the DGGI notice issued earlier this year.
CENVAT Rules Cannot Apply Retrospectively To Concluded MODVAT Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Modi Rubber Limited v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 872 of 2021
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that where proceedings under the MODVAT (Modified Value Added Tax) Scheme had concluded prior to the introduction of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Rules, it would not be open to the revenue department to issue fresh notices against the assessee under the new scheme.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that, "The changed law did not make any specific provision to enable the revenue authorities to initiate a fresh proceedings, where earlier proceedings had already been initiated and concluded under the MODVAT scheme. Therefore, the revenue authority did not acquire the jurisdiction to issue the second Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.1998, on the issue that stood concluded by earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2000.”
Case Title: M/S Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4654 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while acting under Rule 86A of the UPGST Rules, authorities must record 'reason to believe' in 'writing'. It held that not doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the Rule.
“It may not forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a successful GST regime. Therefore, any doubt or suspicion alone may not lead an action by the authorities to block the ITC of the assessee and disrupt the entire value addition chain and consequentially tax payments without fulfulling statutory tax requirements, without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of law - to record 'reasons to believe', 'in writing',” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title: M/s Smm Infratech Private Limited v. State of U.P.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1121 of 2025
Recently, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that under the UPGST Act, a lien cannot be created on the assessee's bank account an year subsequent to the payment of taxes.
“It is clear that these liens have been created after more than a year of the petitioner having paid his taxes. Furthermore, the deeming fiction under Section 62(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would apply, and any further demands should have been withdrawn by the authorities,” held the division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar.
Case Title: M/s Century Laminating Company Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager v. Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control Board
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 1001686 of 2004
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry.
“In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or incidental process carried on by a particular industry in running its business,” held Justice Irshad Ali.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1021 of 2025
Case name: M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor v. State of U.P. and 3 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST Authorities cannot claim jurisdiction for levying tax, penalty, and interest on work that was concluded prior to the implementation of the GST Act.
Notices were issued to the petitioner, a work contractor, for the Financial Year 2018-19 under the GST Act. The petitioner was unable to reply to the notices in time. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed, levying tax, penalty and interest on him. Aggrieved, he sought relief before the High Court.
Case Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.
He held that, despite the fact that the petitioner submitted the report with delay, the authority to take action was the Assistant Commissioner. It was held that the petitioner could not be suspended in a case where the appropriate authority chose not to cancel the GST registration of the firm in question.
Case Title: M/s Gospell Press Thru. Partner Mr. Rajiv Goyal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax LKO And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1283 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that notices under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for confiscation and levy of penalty, could not be issued for alleged violation of maintenance of accounts and records as required under Section 35 of the Act.
It was held that such notices under Section 130 could only be issued once the department had determined the liability of tax under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.
Cannot Cancel GST Registration Without Passing Reasoned Speaking Order: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while cancelling GST registrations, authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders. It held that doing otherwise would render the order unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
“Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any proper notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.
Case Title: M/S Sun Glass Works Private Limited v. The State of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2192 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that nothing under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the relevant rules, and notifications, allows the authorities to reserve judgements on the fixed date and pass them later, especially without informing the assessee.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply but the respondent passed an order levying tax and penalty, without providing the relevant materials or an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: M/s Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of UP and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not be invoked where excess stock was found at the time of survey
While dealing with a case regarding a search conducted under the GST Act, where upon finding discrepancies, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under S. 130 of the Act, Justice Piyush Agarwal held, “A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.”
Case Title: M/S Anil Art And Craft Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 5924 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the cancellation of GST registration of a business entity leads to it economic death and it is sine qua non that a reasoned order is passed by the authority for cancelling the registration of an assesee.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed: “We are equally mindful that the order of cancellation of registration causes deep adverse impact on the conduct of business of any registered individual. Neither the petitioner shall remain entitled to issue Tax Invoices nor may be entitled to avail tax ITC or to pass on ITC. Under the GST regime, it announces the economic death of the business entity.”
Case Title: M/S Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that under GST Act, the department cannot proceed against an assessee for transport of goods, if a genuine e-way bill is present along with the consignment.
Justice Piyush Agarwal held that this would be especially impermissible if the validity of the e-way bill was not disputed by the authorities.
Case title: M/S Anish Transport Company v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 324 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that evasion of tax cannot be attributed to the transporter when consignor accepts error in loading goods.
Certain goods were intercepted in transit from Dehradun to Delhi. After notices were issued to the cosigner/ consignee, the goods were released in their favour. Subsequently, an order alleging intention to evade tax under Section 129 of the GST Act was passed against the petitioner who was merely a transporter of the goods. Appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
GST | Allahabad High Court Grants Stay On Composite Show Cause Notice For Multiple Assessment Years
Case Title: M/S S.D. Freshners Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Mahesh Prasad And Another Versus Union Of India And 5 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 7500 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted stay on composite show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence where multiple assessment years have been clubbed in one show cause notice.
Petitioner approached the High Court against a single show cause notice issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad for tax period starting from August 2019 to September 2023. It was pleaded that the same could not be done as each tax period is a separate cause of action.
Case Title: Adboulevard Media Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut And Another
On Thursday, Allahabad High Court directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut for filing a misleading personal affidavit before the Court despite being given 2 opportunities.
Noting that the impugned order did not show any consideration of the circulars and only quoted a report signed by an appropriate office, Justice Piyush Agrawal observed “This shows the functioning of the GST Department. The officers has courage not only to pass the perverse order but filed his personal affidavit trying to mislead the Court stating that after due consideration the order has been passed.”