Direct TaxNotice Issued To Non-Existing Entity Post-Merger Is Substantive Illegality, Dept Cannot Cite Technical Glitch: Bombay High CourtCase Title: City Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CircleCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2023The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not...
Direct Tax
Case Title: City Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation.
“we cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf of the department” stated the Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain.
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2012
The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”
Case title: Oxford University Press v. DCIT, Int. Tax Circle 3 (2)(2) & Ors.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.1894 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has made it clear that merely because the tax rate which is applicable on an assessee changes in future assessment years (AYs), is not a ground to initiate reassessment action against it for previous AYs, unless the 'jurisdictional parameters' of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are fulfilled.
A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain thus quashed the reassessment order passed against Oxford University Press, merely because its tax status was changed from 'resident' to 'non-resident', making it subject to a 40% tax rate instead of 30%.
Case title: Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. ITAT Pune Bench & Ors.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 17572 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has disapproved of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against an ex-parte order passed against a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare without providing him an opportunity of hearing.
Stating that ITAT cannot “perpetuate” the ex-parte order, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna directed the Tribunal to hear the employee de novo, so far as his prayer for the grant of exemption under section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned.
Case Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik stated,
“The Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that in view of insertion of Section 72A in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee (being the amalgamated company) not having obtained approval of the Central Government was not entitled to adjust the written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies on the basis of depreciation actually allowed to them and to claim depreciation on such adjusted written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies.”
Case Title: Macrotech Developers Limited vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2016
Finding that the Petitioner had failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment of tax, the Bombay High Court ruled that the circuitous movement of funds through various companies located in tax havens had not been disclosed in the course of the original proceedings. The High Court therefore confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
A division bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M.S Sonak observed that “if based on subsequent information, there is a prima-facie material suggesting that the transaction of loan is nothing but the undisclosed funds of the Petitioner routed through various tax havens companies in the form of loan then the disclosure made in the course of the original assessment proceedings cannot be treated as full and true material disclosure for the purpose of the assessment”.
Bombay High Court Quashes NBW Issued Against Actor Arjun Rampal Over 2019 Tax Evasion Case
Case Title: Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department
Case no.: Writ Petition 2579 of 2025
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a 'non-bailable warrant' issued by the Ballard Pier Magistrate Court in the city against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 Income Tax evasion case.
Vacation Court judge Justice Advait Sethna noted that the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Ballard Pier was 'cryptic' and passed 'without application of mind' as the non-bailable warrant was issued in a case pertaining to a 'bailable offence.'
Case Title: Bank of India v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.425 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on bill of exchange drawn or made in India.”
Case Title: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding the said payment is towards 'royalty' under the Treaty, the revenue has relied upon the definition of 'process' under the domestic law. Therefore, to say that the revenue has only held against the Assessee on the ground of domestic law and not the Treaty is not correct.”
Case Title: Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.3442 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that a breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion formed by assessing officer.
The Division Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order, the Petitioner cannot base their claim on this communication to allege breach of Article 265 of the Constitution. The communication dated 29 November 2018 is based on preliminary verification and is subject to processing, and therefore, it is in the nature of a preliminary/prima facie/interlocutory order.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that assessing officer do not have the jurisdiction to go behind net profit in profit and loss account except as per explanation to Section 115J Of Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik observed that “Section 115J of the 1961 Act mandates that in case of a company whose total income as computed under the provisions of the Act 1961 is less than 30% of the book profit, the total income chargeable to tax will be 30% of the book profit, as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act 1956, after certain adjustments.”
Case Title: M/s. Carona Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessee cannot be penalised under Section 271(1) (c) of income tax act for merely raising a plausible claim.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne opined that “the claim raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised liability towards additional bonus was a plausible claim. Whether such claim is tenable in law or not is an altogether different issue. What is relevant to note is the position that the claim made by the Assessee can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as malafide act of concealment of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”
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.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: Income Tax Appeal No. 407 of 2003
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing an appeal filed by M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd., which had made a provision for doubtful debts in its profit and loss account for the Assessment Year 1997–98.
Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act.
The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Pune and Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.491 AND 492 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
Case Title: Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Case Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and another
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was whether it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to determine annual value of the property for the purposes of taxation under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 higher than the rateable value determined under the Municipal laws.
Case Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.142 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs.
Case Title: Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. v. Assessment Unit & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14748 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that …..the assessee/petitioner can be stated to be an “eligible assessee” only if there is a case of variation referred to in the said sub-section 1 and which arises as a consequence of the order passed by the TPO under sub-section 3 of Section 92CA. It is an admitted position that there was no variation in the income of the assessee by virtue of the order of the TPO…
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2166 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court has held that payments to consultant doctors are not salary. Hence, TDS is deductible under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that there does not exist an employer-employee relationship between the assessee and consultant doctors, and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Archroma International (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.11226 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the dispute resolution panel (DRP) directions; assessment completed beyond Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit is invalid.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by the DRP in sub-section (5) of Section 144 (C) of the Act. The reason being, Section 144(C)(13) mandates that the Deputy Commissioner ought to complete the assessment in conformity with the direction of the DRP, that too within the strict timelines. Further, Section 144 C (10) makes a clear provision that the directions of the DRP are binding on the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ramelex Private Ltd.
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot rely solely on Sales Tax Department Data for an income tax addition without granting cross-examination.
Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe stated that, "when the VAT assessment was pending adjudication, merely relying on the information of the Sales Tax Department without granting an opportunity to the Assessee to even cross-examine the hawala purchasers to confirm the purchases from them violated the basic facts of law amenating to unfairness and breach of the principles of natural justice in making the addition of Rs.2,05,74,750/- as bogus purchases in hands of the Assessee."
̌Case Title: Balaji Landmarks LLP Eartwhile v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee should not be penalised for the delay in filing the return caused by the chartered accountant's belated advice. The bench noted that the delay is not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee, but to inadequate advice by the Chartered Accountant, a fact admitted by him in his affidavit.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar opined that the Petitioner ought not to be put to a considerable disadvantage as a result of belated advice given to it by the Chartered Accountant, especially when the issue that was being grappled with is fairly complex and for which there were no well-settled judicial precedents at the relevant time.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11261 OF 2025
CASE TITLED: SAVITRIBAI PHULE SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, KAMLAPUR VS. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION (INVESTIGATION) PUNE & ORS.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Charitable Trust “Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak” seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order passed by the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (Investigation) Pune whereby the Trust/Petitioner's application for condonation of delay 509 days in filing its Form 9A for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected.
Per Explanation below Section 11(7) of the Income Tax Act, 196, the Charitable Trusts were required to claim Application of Income on an “Actual Payment Basis”, incorporated after the Finance Act, 2022 from A.Y. 2022-2023 whereby the application of income was to be claimed on the basis of “Actual Payment Basis” and not “Accrual Basis”.
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 32001 of 2025
Case Titled: Shabana Aijaz Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward- 3(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the reassessment notice did not follow the mandate that the Faceless Assessing Officer only has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was further stated that even international taxation matters could be made subject to the faceless regime.
A Division Bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, whereby the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice, on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(AO) violating the mandate of the reassessment notice to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer(AO).
Case Title: Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a company that had ceased to exist due to conversion into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), holding that reopening of assessment against a non-existent entity is “illegal and bad-in-law”.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP (successor of Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.), challenging the reassessment proceedings.
Case Title: Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Charity Fund Vs. Income Tax, Officer (Exemption)
Case No. Writ Petition No. 4941 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 & 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated to re-open issues that were already scrutinized and accepted during the original assessment, observing that a mere change of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer does not constitute reason to believe nor permit reassessment.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while deciding a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148, which alleged that the assessee failed to specify the purpose of income accumulation under Section 11(2) in Form 10. The Bench stated that in the present case, all the material particulars and documents were before the Assessing Officer when the original assessment was conducted. There is no new material before the Revenue, nor are there any new facts or information to justify the reopening of the assessment.
Case Title: Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs. Citron Infraprojects Limited AADCC3733C
Case No: Income Tax Appeal(L) No. 34357 of 2024 and connected matters
The Bombay High Court has held that prior approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is not a mere technical or procedural formality, and that mechanical, en masse sanction without application of mind vitiates the entire assessment under Section 153A.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding a batch of over 60 Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue led by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4, dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, affirming the ITAT's ruling which had set aside assessments framed against the assesses, Citron Infra projects Limited, Helios Mercantile Limited, SVP Global Textiles Limited, Shri Vallabh Pittie South West Industries, and other connected entities.
Case Title: Accost Media LLP Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition(L) No. 35160 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act begins when the assessee receives the ITAT order, and not merely from the date on which the order is passed. The Court ruled that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had completely misdirected itself in rejecting a rectification plea by Accost Media LLP as time-barred.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar delivered the ruling while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee Accost Media Ltd., challenging the order of the ITAT refusing to entertain a rectification application.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) v. Milan Kavin Parikh
Case No.: Income Tax Appeal No. 1827 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that no income addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless incriminating material is found during a search, even if the Revenue relies on information received from foreign authorities.
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, which had deleted additions of nearly ₹28 crore made against the assessee, Milan Kavin Parikh.
Case Title: Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sindhi Vs Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 16464 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has stayed the entire income tax demand raised against a state-funded educational trust, holding that the tax authorities erred in bringing gross receipts to tax without accounting for expenditure.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while allowing a writ petition filed by the assessee, Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sindhi, set aside an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, which had directed the trust to deposit 15% of the disputed demand as a pre-condition for stay during pendency of the statutory appeal.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane Vs. Vrushali Sanjay Shinde
Case No.: ITA(L) No. 12683 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that an approval granted under Section 153D of the Act, which does not reflect even minimal application of mind, is vitiated in law and renders the consequential proceedings invalid.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding an appeal, answered the substantial question of law against the Revenue i.e. Whether an approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, without recording reasons, can nevertheless be treated as mechanical and invalid for lack of application of mind and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had quashed the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.
Case Title: M/s Colorcon Asia pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case No.: Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2024
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by an Indian subsidiary to its foreign shareholder must be restricted to the treaty rate of 10% under Article 11 of the India-UK India Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd., and set aside the advance ruling passed by the Board for Advance Rulings, (BFAR) New Delhi.
Indirect Tax
Case Title: M/s. Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court is to decide whether the donuts and cakes should be classified as restaurant service or a bakery product under Goods and Services Tax. The Division Bench of Justices B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla were addressing the issue of whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorized as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
If the donuts and other bakery items classified under restaurant services they would be taxed at 5% and if they classified under bakery product, they would be subjected to tax upto 18%.
Case Title: Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.
Case Title: Purple Products Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2831 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions.
The Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act cannot be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned.
Case Title: Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.15228 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court stated that design and engineering services to foreign entities are zero-rated supplies; assessee eligible for refund of unutilized ITC U/S 54 CGST.
The Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that assessee is not an agency of the foreign recipient and both are independent and distinct persons. Thus, condition (v) of Section 2(6) is fully satisfied in the case. The assessee is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero-rated supplies in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the same shall be granted to them along with statutory interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 1994
The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would not be governed by the subsequent change in the scheme granting the benefit.
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2014
The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.”
Case Title: Darshan Singh Parmar v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be eschewed.”
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy International v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 11399 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that a GST notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act can't be issued directly to the bank. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act was not addressed to the assessee but directly to the bank.
“Where such notice is served on a person, he can prove to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the notice that the money demanded or any part thereof was not due to the person in default or that he did not hold any money for or on account of the person in default at the time the notice was served on him nor is the money demanded or any part thereof, likely to become due to the said person or be held for or on account of such person” opined the bench.
GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15536 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised excise return to claim the credit and transitioned under new regime.”
Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12528 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that a GST order can't be a copy-paste of the show cause notice and that independent reasoning must be present.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases.”
Case Title: Umicore Autocat India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 463 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the GST Council and GST Network to develop a mechanism for cross-state ITC transfer in Mergers/amalgamations.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta permitted the IGST and CGST amount lying in the electronic credit ledger of the Transferor Company to be transferred to the Petitioner Company by physical mode for the time being, subject to the adjustments to be made in future.
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited
Case Number: SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed.
“HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.
Case Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process).
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”
Case Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.
Case Title: Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff and anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.4670 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that facing tax prosecution does not automatically bar an accused from foreign travel.
Justice S.M. Modak stated that, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending."
Case Title: M/s Provident Housing Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court held that tax liability under JDA (joint development agreement) arises only upon conveyance of property, not on execution of agreement.
The bench consists of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that no liability actually fell upon the assessee at the time when JDA was entered into, as the liability arises only upon the conveyance of the property. The assessee developer becoming the owner of the property for which the JDA was executed. Accordingly, the tax liability does not fall upon the assessee.
Case Title: Hikal Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings clause.
The bench agreed with the assessee/petitioners that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore the pending proceedings can claim no immunity or protection.
Denial Of Re-Testing Of Seized Goods Must Be Occasional And Recorded In Writing: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shri Vyom Dipesh Raichanna v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.10708 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that re-testing of seized goods is a trade facilitation measure, not to be denied in the ordinary course.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that "...Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course…"
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court has held that pre-show cause notice consultation is not an empty formality; mandatory before the show cause notice (SCN) in demands above Rs. 50 lakhs. The question before Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was whether a pre-consultation notice would be mandatory before issuing show cause notices where the tax demand exceeds Rs. 50 Lakhs.
The bench opined that ….The requirement of a pre-consultative process cannot be dismissed as some empty formality. The master circular and the Circular of 19 November 2020 style this requirement as mandatory in cases where the tax demand exceeds Rs 50 lakhs, unless, of course, the case falls in any of the exceptions. Such circulars bind the Department…
Information Regarding GST Returns Of Company Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of Maharashtra
Case no.: Writ Petition 11135 of 2025
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 14) held that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filing cannot be disclosed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of information of GST returns to third parties and that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act too exempts certain information from being made public unless the information officer is satisfied that the said information must be disclosed as a public interest is involved.
Case Title: West India Continental Oils Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3000 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay Rs. 71.31. Lakh interest on refund of illegal IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) collected under RCM (Reverse Charge Mechanism) on ocean freight.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that admittedly, the Petitioner had paid the amount of IGST which the respondents utilized up to the date of grant of refund. Having utilized such amounts of the Petitioner there is no justification, legal or otherwise to deny interest to the Petitioner. To deprive the Petitioner of interest, in the given facts, would run contrary to the well-recognised legal principle of restitution which also finds statutory force under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Title: Shri. Indu Shekhar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.5253 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has granted a stay on the Notification issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade) seeking to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2025, the DGFT, having realised the mistake, issued a fresh Notification rectifying the same.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar were addressing a petition seeking a declaration that Notification No.02/2025-26 dated 2nd April 2025, issued by DGFT to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”, is ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Case No. : Sales Tax Reference NO. 09 OF 2011
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that manufacturers cannot claim full sales tax set-off on furnace oil used in producing goods that are partly sold within Maharashtra and partly transferred to branches outside the state, ruling that a 6% reduction must apply under Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, on applicability of Rule 41D of the Sales Tax Act to furnace oil, endorses the view of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Pudumjee Pulp to state that “the logical corollary would be to apply the provisions of Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Sales Tax Rules as it stands, without reading it down, on the purchase of furnace oil in proportion to the finished goods despatched to the branches of Borosil.”
CASE NUMBER: WRIT PETITION NO. 6467 OF 2025
CASE TITLED:M/S SUMAN S. CONSTRUCTION VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
On November 14th, 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Suman Construction (“assessee” hereinafter), a government-registered civil contractor, which had challenged the service tax demand raised on road construction works for government departments.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the assessee could invoke a rectification application under Section 74 of the Finance Act to claim service-tax exemption for such government road projects, instead of filing a statutory appeal against the Order.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor P. Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that a rebate under Rule 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be denied without determining the tax liability on exported goods, and has remanded Yamaha's rebate claim to the principal commissioner for fresh consideration.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna were examining whether the India Yamaha Motor P. Limited was entitled to a rebate under Rule 18 CER 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6 September 2024 in respect of the finished products upon which BED and NCCD was paid by the Yamaha (initially by utilising CENVAT credit, and later in cash), in so far as such payments concern the export of the finished products outside the India.
CGST Act | Bombay High Court Stays GST Demand Order Over Delayed Service Of Showcause Notice
Case Titled: Octantis Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Union Of India And Anr
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6043 Of 2023
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to the assessee by staying the operation of a GST Demand Order
The Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ preferred by the assessee seeking to quash the GST demand order challenging the Show Case Notice to be time barred per Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Titled: Sukraft Recycling Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 540 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the Department to refund the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess to the assessee observing that a manufacturer exporting goods is entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit(ITC) of Compensation Cess, as Section 16(3)(b) of the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must apply to both the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Compensation Cess.
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P.Mehta stated that we find the justification offered to refuse the benefit to the Petitioner, to be completely lacking logic. and we say so, since we find that the two components, i.e. the component of input tax credit availed under CGST/IGST are different from that by way of compensation cess. Worth to note that the mechanism prescribed under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, in order to claim refund for making zero rated supply, is restricted to the CGST and IGST and this is evident from the definition of the term, 'input tax credit' under the CGST Act, as it do not include the compensation cess.
Case Title: M/s Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012
The Bombay High Court has held that the assignment of the well-known trademark “Crocin” by Duphar Interfran Ltd. to SKB Plc (UK) amounted to a sale “in the course of export” of intangible goods, and therefore could not be taxed as a local sale within the State of Maharashtra under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a Sales Tax Reference overturned the view of the Sales Tax Tribunal and held that the situs of an intangible property follows the situs of its owner (mobilia sequuntur personam) and thus, the assignment of the trademark amounted to export, attracting the bar under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11118 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that an importer cannot be made liable to pay customs duty on goods that were never cleared for home consumption and were never received by the importer. The Court observed that, under Sections 13, 23 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, duty paid in anticipation of clearance becomes refundable once it is established that the goods were short-landed or lost before clearance.
A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was hearing a petition filed by M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. challenging the rejection of its refund claim for ₹35,37,358/–, paid as customs duty for 100 metric tons of PVC Resin imported under a Bill of Entry dated 27 April 2022. The petitioner had paid the full duty but never received the consignment.
Case Title: Evershine Enterprises Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3138 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is mandatorily required to verify and consider pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigation under Form SVLDRS-3 (final statement issued by the Designated Committee showing the exact amount payable by the taxpayer under the Scheme)
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the SVLDRS-3 demand statement from the assessee without adjusting tax already recovered and pre-deposits made. The Court stated that mere non-availability of challans cannot be a ground to disregard material produced within the permissible timeline. The Court observed that issuing SVLDRS-3 without such verification is contrary to Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which mandates adjustment of past payments.
Case Title: Imran Humanyun Chandiwala Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case no.: Writ Petition: 12921 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot override or ignore the findings of the Customs Settlement Commission while taking administrative action. The Court ruled that once the Commission accepts the disclosure, settles duty liability and grants immunity under Section 127H of the Customs Act, its order becomes final and conclusive under Section 127J, and no other authority can indirectly reopen the customs issue.
A bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar while hearing the writ petition preferred by the purchaser, restored the registration of a Nissan petrol car purchased by Mumbai businessman, whose registration had been cancelled by the RTO on the ground that the vehicle was originally imported using forged customs documents.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3587 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Union Government's order denying India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. a rebate of ₹3.26 crore towards National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) paid on exported motorcycles, holding that the authority failed to examine the core statutory requirements under the Central Excise Rules.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna remanded the matter to the Central Government (Revisionary Authority) to reconsider Yamaha's claim afresh and pass a reasoned order within six months.
Case Title: M/s Unique Enterprises Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2021
The Bombay High Court has set aside the SVLDRS-3 Form issued to M/s Unique Enterprises, holding that the case should have been assessed under the “Litigation” category of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and not under the “Arrears” category. The Court ruled that the duty demand in the case had not attained finality, and therefore the assessee was entitled to 70% relief under Section 124(1)(a) of the Scheme.
A Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna while hearing a writ petition seeking quashing and setting aside of form SVLDS-3 issued to the assessee under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, stated that the Petitioner's case would fall under the ambit of Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance Act, and Petitioner would be legally entitled to relief to the extent of 70% of the tax dues/duty demand.
Nescafé Premix Is 'Instant Coffee', Attracts Lower Sales Tax Rate: Bombay High Court
Case Name: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra vs. Nestle India
Case No. : Sales Tax Reference NO. 24 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court in a matter concerning classification of Nescafé Premix and if it was exigible to sales tax at the rate of 8% or 16%, has held that a premix resulting in 'Coffee and Instant drinks' would be classifiable as such, attracting lower rate of tax. (8% not 16%).
In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna re-iterated the cardinal principle of taxation in the context of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 that specific entries in a tax schedule should prevail over general entries. On the classification of Nescafé Premix under by applying the common parlance test the High Court ruled that Nescafé Premix marketed, traded as such had created a consumer perception of 'Instant coffee'.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs. Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, Nagpur
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 2010 in Reference Application No. 68 of 2004
In a significant ruling on product classification under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Bombay High Court has held that canned pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup cannot be treated as “fresh fruits” for the purpose of Entry A-23 of the Schedule to the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna answered the sales tax reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee Sudha Instant Soft Drinks & Essences, Nagpur, thereby overturning the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's view.
Revenue Cannot Adjudicate Decade-Old SCNs On NPV Sales Tax Retention: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Computer Graphics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Nos.: Writ Petition Nos. 2052 & 2054 of 2025 (F)
The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside two show cause notices issued to a manufacturer seeking to levy central excise duty on the differential amount of sales tax/VAT retained by it under a Net Present Value (NPV) incentive scheme, holding that the Revenue cannot be permitted to adjudicate stale notices after an unexplained and inordinate delay.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan allowed the writ petitions filed by the assessee, quashing show cause notices, which were sought to be adjudicated after a lapse of nearly nine and eight years, respectively. The Bench stated that in any case, as we find that the determination of the show cause notices shall defeat its purpose, on account of lapse of time as it will pose difficulty for the Revenue as well as the Assessee to track the necessary material, which will be necessary for effective adjudication and hence, according to us, the show cause notices cannot be adjudicated and are liable to be quashed and set aside only on the ground of gross delay in not adjudicating them, despite lapse of period of 9 and 8 years respectively.
GST Abolished Ad Tax, Doesn't Bar Municipal Licence Fees on Hoardings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. And connected matters
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10684 of 2018
The Bombay High Court recently held that the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime does not take away the power of municipal corporations in Maharshtra to levy licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs. The court clarified that GST abolished only advertisement tax and not regulatory charges imposed under municipal law.
A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna, made the observation while dismissing a large batch of petitions filed by outdoor advertising agencies, challenging the levy of licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Notices Issued Against Mumbai Company After SVLDRS Settlement
Case Title: Astute Valuers and Consultanta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 74 of 2023
The Bombay High Court has held that once a dispute is settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and a Discharge Certificate is issued, tax authorities cannot reopen the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Advait M Sethna set aside two show cause notices issued by officers of the Central GST Audit-II wing, Mumbai, after the dispute was settled under the Scheme.
Case Name: Commissioner of Central GST vs. Dish TV India Limited (Formerly known as Videocon D2H Ltd.)
The Bombay High Court has upheld the Mumbai Tribunal's decision allowing Dish TV to retain CENVAT Credit on imported smart cards, which were used for testing and pairing with Set Top Boxes.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar dismissed the appeal filed by the Service Tax Department against order by the Mumbai, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that after verifying accounting records held in favour of Dish TV.