Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 206 to 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 244NOMINAL INDEXAshumal @ Asharam Thaumal Sindhi (Harpalani) v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 206Abdul Vahab Mohamed Shabbir Sopariwala v/s State of Gujarat 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 207Navneetlal Vanmalidas Khakhkhar (Thakkar) v/s Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 208Sandhya Maulik Patel v/s Asst Commissioner...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 206 to 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
NOMINAL INDEX
Ashumal @ Asharam Thaumal Sindhi (Harpalani) v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
Abdul Vahab Mohamed Shabbir Sopariwala v/s State of Gujarat 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
Navneetlal Vanmalidas Khakhkhar (Thakkar) v/s Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
Sandhya Maulik Patel v/s Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
Apcotex Industries Ltd. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
M/s Mitesh Impex & Ors. v/s Union of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
Gateway Exim v/s State of Gujarat Through Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
Rao Tradelink Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
PFIZER Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
Tathya Pragneshbhai Patel v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
Navdeep Mathur & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
Mahendrasinh Mahobatsinh Jadeja & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 217
Infodesk India Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v/s The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
Rajgreen Infralink LLP v/s The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Surat 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
X v/s Y 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
Firoz Ibrahim Poshti & Ors. v/s Collector and District Magistrate & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
Abhilasha Ashok Kumar v/s IIM & Ors and Batch 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani v/s Gujarat Housing Board & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
M/S Panchhi Traders Through its Authorized Signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki Vs State of Gujarat Through Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
State of Gujarat v/s Jayantbhai @ Langho Chimanbhai Solanki 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
Mohamed Asifbhai Seliya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
Shahi Masjid and Sarkhej Mansuri Jamat Kabrastan v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
Legal Heirs and Dependants of Decd. Mayurbhai Jesingbhai Dhuda Minaben Jesingbhai Dhuda & Anr. v/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
Sunni Muslim Idgah Masjid Trust v/s Hardik Sitaram Patel & Anr. and Batch 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
Rajhans Metals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
Dr. Indranil Bandopadhyay v/s Institute for Plasma Research & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
Noya Infrastructure LLP v/s Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
Durga Gopal Shinde Sole Proprietorship vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
M/s Arihant Agro Distillation and Liquid Terminals Limited v/s Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
Aparajita Energy Private Limited v/s Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
Rajmohini @ Rajmohunaben Kidiyabhai Damor v/s Shayam Harishbhai Dhokhai & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya v/s State of Gujarat 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
JB Trivedi Hospitality Ltd. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
Rajkumar Santoshi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. and Batch 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
Maharanashri Mahipendrasinhji Parmar Heir of Pruthvirajsinh (Deceased thru legal heirs) & Ors. v/s Administrator Shree Ambaji Mata Devsthan Trist Ambaji & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
Virat Alloys Private Limited v/s Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Gandhinagar 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
The Commissioner of Customs-Kandla v/s M/A Devam Impex 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Ashumal @ Asharam Thaumal Sindhi (Harpalani) v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 206
The Gujarat High Court on Monday (December 01) orally said that it "will modify" the condition of the presence of three police officials in Asaram's vicinity, during the 6-month period wherein his life sentence has been suspended in a rape case.
The court in its order said:
"We have carefully examined the past conduct of the applicant herein and order passed by the Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, while releasing the convict on temporary bail. In such circumstances, we deem it fit to delete the condition of round the clock presence of the security personnel and, therefore, condition no.(i) is required to be modified to the extent of directing presence of police officials in the vicinity of the applicant stood deleted. In other words, except presence of police personnel other conditions imposed by this Court while granting temporary bail in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2025 inCriminal Appeal No.607 of 2023 remain unaltered and required to be followed scrupulously by the convict".
Case title: Abdul Vahab Mohamed Shabbir Sopariwala v/s State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 207
The Gujarat High Court on Monday rejected an appeal filed against a single bench order dismissing challenge to a committee formed by the State to consider necessity of Uniform Civil Code.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray said that scope of judicial review does not permit the court to enter into the prohibited arena of executive functions.
For context, the single judge had in July rejected the plea challenging the committee formed to consider necessity of UCC for the State. It had stated that the panel was constituted by an executive order and in absence of any statutory provision, the selection of the members is in the absolute domain of the State.
Case title: Navneetlal Vanmalidas Khakhkhar (Thakkar) v/s Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 208
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 2) dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge's order which had rejection a plea against eviction notices issued to certain residents asking them to vacate a property over encroachment of Isanpur lake in Ahmedabad.
The court noted that the notice issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) categorically recorded that the appellants (petitioners before single judge) had encroached upon a land, which is a water body. The notice asked the appellants to give peaceful vacant possession within 21 days on the ground that their construction is on a water body on which no construction is permissible.
Case title: Sandhya Maulik Patel v/s Asst Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 209
The Gujarat High Court has observed that information available in public domain or any unrelated information seized from the searched person without a connection to the assessee is not enough to be the basis of issuing a show cause notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The court was hearing a plea challenging notice dated 13.10.2021 by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 to 2020-21 issued to the petitioner.
Case title: Apcotex Industries Ltd. Union of India & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 210
The Gujarat High Court has held that Acrylonitrile when used for non-insecticide purpose, such as manufacture of synthetic rubber, would be exempted from the mandate of import permits in view of the exemptions under Section 38 of the Insecticides Act.
Section 38 of the Act carries a non-obstante clause which states that nothing in the act shall apply to the use of any insecticide by any person for his own household purposes or for kitchen garden or in respect of any land under his cultivation.
Case title: M/s Mitesh Impex & Ors. v/s Union of India & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 211
The Gujarat High Court has said that under Section 138B Customs Act, statements of witnesses given before a concerned officer, who are unavailable for cross-examination by the assessee, can be considered relevant only when the circumstances of unavailability are established, and a finding is given on the impossibility to secure their presence.
Case title: Gateway Exim v/s State of Gujarat Through Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 212
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (December 3) quashed order issued to entity for failing to intimate about personal hearing, which had claimed that after notice of GST DRC-01 was issued to it, the authority did not intimate the date and time of personal hearing which was against principles of natural justice.
In doing so the court said while issuing DRC-01 it would not be mandatory to incorporate the date and time of personal hearing; however once subsequent proceedings progress, but before the final order is passed, the assessee must be intimated the date and time of personal hearing.
Case title: Rao Tradelink Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 213
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 148 of Income Tax Act based on mere change of opinion without concrete material is not justified, when the return has been threadbare examined during initial assessment and approved without failure of disclosure.
It noted that as per the AO's own findings he was unsure about the actual escaped income which he had said will be finalized only on completion of proceedings, which the court termed as "vague observations".
Case Detail: PFIZER Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 214
The Gujarat High Court has allowed writ petition by Pfizer, a pharmaceutical major against the Value Added Tax (VAT) Tribunal order that expressly barred the consideration of any additional Form-F.
In a judgment dated November 20, 2025, the Division Bench comprising of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted the 11-year pendency in litigation in relation to production of Form-F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In this vein, the High Court deliberated on piecemeal production of Form-F for interstate branch transfers. It held the additional Form-F valued at ₹16 crores in terms of VAT Tribunal order as maintainable since Petitioner stated that future claims would be waived by it.
Case title: Tathya Pragneshbhai Patel v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 215
The Gujarat High Court refused to discharge Tathya Patel for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (IPC Section 304 part 2) accused in the 2023 Iskcon Bridge hit and run case which claimed nine lives in Ahmedabad, observing that there was a strong prima facie case against him.
The court said that this was not a simple case of rash and negligent driving, wherein the applicant was under the belief that he had taken sufficient precaution to prevent the accident and this imputability arose from him "persisting in excessive speed despite being asked to drive slowly".
Case title: Navdeep Mathur & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 216
The Gujarat High Court has directed the state authorities to widely publicize prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (earlier Section 144 CrPC)–prohibiting assembly of four or more persons in a specific area to prevent urgent nuisance or on apprehending danger–on "social media" to generate public awareness about the same.
In doing so the court observed that mere publication of such orders in the official gazette is not enough as the public at large has no access; whereas today in the era of social media platforms it would incumbent on the authorities to publish such orders by using these modes.
Case title: Mahendrasinh Mahobatsinh Jadeja & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 217
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 9) directed the state authorities to grant personal hearing to a man who had challenged a notice asking him to vacate a property, given to him on lease after 2001 earthquake, used by him to run an electronic repair shop.
In doing so the court also restrained the authorities from taking any coercive action until a decision is taken by them in the matter.
Case title: Infodesk India Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 218
The Gujarat High Court has held that rendering software consultancy services including editorial and content creation activities as well as customer support services to Infodesk Inc., Parent Company in the United States is 'export of service' and not 'intermediary service'.
In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the refund rejection order as in passing the same lower authorities erred in holding that Petitioner was providing 'Intermediary Service'. The Gujarat High Court clarified that Content integration by adding insight (smart data which is run through AI techniques and human curation) that helps resolve challenges in business did not constitute as an 'Intermediary Service'.
Case title: M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v/s The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 219
After almost 20 year litigation, the Gujarat High Court permitted a public sector energy enterprise to claim branch transfer exemption of over Rs 6 crore under the Central Sales Tax Act, which was denied earlier on non-production of the original Form-F.
Form F is a document used for branch transfer of goods in the course of inter-state trade, which permits claiming of exemption from Central Sales Tax (CST) on such transactions.
Case title: Rajgreen Infralink LLP v/s The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Surat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 220
The Gujarat High Court quashed an order of the tax authorities rejecting a partnership firm's application seeking condonation of 13 day delay in filing income tax return on account of Covid pandemic, observing that authority "did not apply its mind" to the reasons given by the firm.
The petitioner partnership firm engaged in real estate development business had challenged a 27.10.2023 rejecting its application for condonation of delay in filing income tax return for Assessment Year 2021-22 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Couple's Divorce Allegedly Triggered By Wife's No Onion-Garlic Diet
Case title: X v/s Y
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a couple which the husband claimed was triggered by differences caused due to the wife following a diet of consuming no onion and garlic.
A division bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha M Thakore were hearing two cross appeals wherein the wife had challenged the family court's order granting divorce on the husband's plea.
Case title: Firoz Ibrahim Poshti & Ors. v/s Collector and District Magistrate & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 222
The Gujarat High Court in an interim order on Friday (December 12) directed the Godhara Nagar Palika not to take any coercive action against residents who had challenged a notice asking them to remove alleged unauthorized construction, whose plea for regularization was pending before the Collector.
The court was hearing a petition by residents challenging notice dated 12-11-2025 issued by Godhara Nagar palika whereby petitioner has been directed to remove unauthorized construction on the subject land.
Case title: Abhilasha Ashok Kumar v/s IIM & Ors and Batch
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 223
The Gujarat High Court recently set aside an order passed by IIM-Ahmedabad expelling three students enrolled in Doctoral of Programme in Management course, holding that the action of the institution was not in consonance with the procedure prescribed in the programme manual.
The petitioners, who were selected for Doctoral of Programme in Management (DPM) at IIM Ahmedabad, had challenged a June 7 decision which held that they had not fulfilled the conditions for promotion from first year to the second year of 'Coursework' stage. Hence their candidature in the said course was withdrawn and the petitioners were expelled from the programme.
Case title: Ranjana Mulchandbhai Shitlani v/s Gujarat Housing Board & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 224
The Gujarat High Court recently directed a power of attorney holder to remove encroachment over a public footpath observing that long possession will not create any ownership right adding that the party had failed to prove that they were owner of the property in question.
The court was hearing a woman's plea challenging notice dated 20.11.2025 directing her to remove encroachment done on a public footpath within 15 days.
Case Title: M/S Panchhi Traders Through its Authorized Signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki Vs State of Gujarat Through Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 225
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the power of GST authorities to confiscate goods and conveyances during transit where there is a clear intent to evade tax, and has clarified the scope and interplay of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, while deciding a large batch of writ petitions, held that Sections 129 (detention and seizure of goods in transit) and 130 (confiscation of goods and conveyances) operate independently and are not inter-dependent, even after the amendments.
Case Detail: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 226
The Gujarat High Court has held that reliance on statements of witnesses without allowing the manufacturer opportunity to cross‑examine, while ignoring those statements that testified in favour of the manufacturer, violates principles of natural justice.
In a judgment delivered on November 25, 2025 Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the penalty order and culled-out 8 quintessential features of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly, clauses (a ) and (b) that introduces the element of cross-examination of the witness who has given the statement before a Customs Officer. The Gujarat High Court observed that Section 138B requires cross‑examination for admissibility. It was clarified that a Customs Officer cannot rely on bare statement of witnesses recorded during inquiry or proceedings cannot be used against an assessee unless an opportunity to rebut the same had been given to assessee.
Case title: State of Gujarat v/s Jayantbhai @ Langho Chimanbhai Solanki
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 227
The Gujarat High Court recently commuted the death sentence of a man to life imprisonment who was convicted by the trial court for raping a minor girl.
In doing so the court said that the trial court while sentencing the convict to death, did not give a finding on the aspect of the convict's reformation and the possibility that he will become a useful member to the society if is given a chance to do so.
Case title: Mohamed Asifbhai Seliya v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 228
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 16) allowed a restaurant, which had been sealed on allegations of causing nuisance by selling non-vegetarian food in violation of the lease agreement, to submit an undertaking to the Anand Municipal Corporation for de-sealing, directing that the same be considered in accordance with law.
The court was hearing a petition challenging a notice dated 2-12-2025 under which the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises (shop in question) within 10 days failing which action of sealing under Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations (GPMC) Act has been indicated. The court was told the premises had been sealed. The petitioner was given the premises on lease by the corporation wherein he was running a restaurant.
Case title: Shahi Masjid and Sarkhej Mansuri Jamat Kabrastan v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 229
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 16) refused to entertain a plea filed by a mosque in Ahmedabad claiming apprehension of action against it by the authorities, observing that no cause of action had arisen as plea was filed on an apprehension and the court cannot entertain an anticipatory petition.
Case title: Legal Heirs and Dependants of Decd. Mayurbhai Jesingbhai Dhuda Minaben Jesingbhai Dhuda & Anr. v/s Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 230
Modifying an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Gujarat High Court observed that merely triple riding on a two-wheeler, in absence of any evidence or a casual connection between the violation and the accident, would not amount to contributory negligence.
Case title: Sunni Muslim Idgah Masjid Trust v/s Hardik Sitaram Patel & Anr. and Batch
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 231
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (December 17) dismissed a batch of petitions moved by various waqf institutions challenging orders passed by Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal rejecting applications under the Waqf Act over disputes pertaining to waqf properties, citing insufficient court fee.
In doing so the court held that there was "no blanket exemption" or waiver granted to waqf institutions from paying court fees for filing applications under Section 83(3) of Waqf Act in the State.
Case Name: Rajhans Metals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 232
The Gujarat High Court has allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input used in setting up of a Windmill, away from factory premises, on the strength of nexus of the inputs with output activity, electricity generation.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi in twin writ petitions has set aside order of CESTAT Ahmedabad that disallowed CENVAT credit on the ground that credit of inputs and input services utilized away from the factory site for setting-up Windmill could not be availed. In turn, the Gujarat High Court emphasized on 'nexus with manufacturing activity' noting that installation, erection and commissioning were 'exclusively' used in the manufacturing activity viz. electricity generated at Windmill. Therefore, the aforesaid services
Institute For Plasma Research Is 'State' Under Article 12 Of Constitution: Gujarat High Court
Case title: Dr. Indranil Bandopadhyay v/s Institute for Plasma Research & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 233
The Gujarat High Court has held that Institute for Plasma Research is 'State' under Article 12 of Constitution of India as it is an entity created under a statute having roots in the Atomic Energy Act, is 100% funded by the Government and serves the public by engaging in research and development for societal benefit.
A full bench of Justice AS Supehia, Justice Aniruddha P Mayee and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a reference made by a division bench on the question of law whether Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) can be termed as 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Case title: Noya Infrastructure LLP v/s Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 234
The Gujarat High Court recently directed release of imported distillate oil which was earlier seized on the ground that it did not meet the parameters of distillate oil, holding that the test report did not definitively conclude that the Distillate Oil was Diesel, to an extent that it would change the nature of classification from Distillate Oil to Diesel.
Case Name: Durga Gopal Shinde Sole Proprietorship vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 235
The Gujarat High Court has restored GST registration subject to compliance with filing of pending returns and payment of outstanding tax with interest, late fee and penalty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi permitted filing of GST returns for past period after noting copy of GST Returns for the period from April 2022 to December 2024, self-ascertained tax liability discharged through Electronic Cash Ledger.
Case title: M/s Arihant Agro Distillation and Liquid Terminals Limited v/s Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 236
The Gujarat High Court recently directed the release of imported Distillate Fuel Oil seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, observing that the samples that were collected and sent for testing of parameters was neither collected in the presence of the proper officer or of the owner/importer of the goods.
Case title: Aparajita Energy Private Limited v/s Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 237
The Gujarat High Court recently directed release of imported Distillate Fuel Oil which was seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for not meeting the cloud point parameters, observing that respondent authorities had no definite opinions and the opinions vary so far as the parameter of Cloud Point is concerned.
Case title: Rajmohini @ Rajmohunaben Kidiyabhai Damor v/s Shayam Harishbhai Dhokhai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 238
The Gujarat High Court has held that not all injuries result in loss of earning capacity and thus it is necessary to assess the functional disability while considering grant of compensation to a road-accident victim.
In doing so, the court noted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had "mechanically" accepted "disability certificate" of a cashier–who was hit by a four wheeler, at 47% without assigning any reasons. This, the court noted, was in contrast to the report of the court appointed four member medical board which had opined the disability to be 27%.
Case title: Rakshit Ravish Chorasiya v/s State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 239
The Gujarat High Court on Monday (December 22) granted regular bail to a 23-year-old student accused of rash and dangerous driving in the Vadodara car crash case earlier this year which had resulted in the death of one person and injured nine others.
The court directed the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 Lakh with one surety of the like amount subject to certain conditions.
Case title: JB Trivedi Hospitality Ltd. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 240
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 23) has directed the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to de-seal four flats belonging to an entity after the owner submitted that an undertaking shall be filed with the corporation that the flats will not be used for "hospitality purpose" without prior permission from the corporation.
Case Title: Rajkumar Santoshi v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. and Batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 241
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (December 30) relaxed the bail condition imposed on film director Rajkumar Santoshi booked in a cheque dishonour case, permitting him to travel abroad between December 30-January 4, 2026 for promotion of his upcoming directorial movie 'Lahore 1947'.
Case title: Maharanashri Mahipendrasinhji Parmar Heir of Pruthvirajsinh (Deceased thru legal heirs) & Ors. v/s Administrator Shree Ambaji Mata Devsthan Trist Ambaji & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 242
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the claim of heirs of the erstwhile Danta royal family for "special privileges" to perform rituals at Ambaji Temple on the eight day of Navratri and in a certain way, thereby "curtailing" right of the pilgrims to offer prayers which it said cannot be allowed as the temple was a public religious institution.
The court further observed that the Arasuri Ambaji temple is one of the Shakti Peetha's attracting crores of pilgrims from across India for centuries. Applying the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. State Of Kerala (2021) regarding the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, where it was held that worship is open to the public as of right and the endowment is for a public religious purpose, the high court said:
"Consequently, the claim of private ownership or exclusive hereditary rights cannot be sustained. Therefore, under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Arasuri Ambaji temple is a public religious institution and the deity is juristic person owning endowed property".
Case title: Virat Alloys Private Limited v/s Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Gandhinagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 153C Income Tax Act proceedings against a company after noting that the assessing officer's satisfaction note did not bear any date and that the note, though recorded in 2022 was "supplied" to the company only in 2024 i.e., after a delay of two years without any explanation.
Case title: The Commissioner of Customs-Kandla v/s M/A Devam Impex
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 244
The Gujarat High Court upheld ruling of Customs Authority for Advance Rulings granting exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty for inshell-walnuts imported by an entity treating the goods as "dietary fibre".