Judgments With CitationsDirect TaxMotor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced : Supreme CourtCase name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim...
Judgments With Citations
Direct Tax
Case name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand.
Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18
The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed after taking into account the tax returns. However, the details of tax payment must be properly brought into evidence to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income.
The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol were deciding a batch of appeals preferred both by the insurer and the claimant. While the claimant prayed for the enhancement of compensation, the insurer pleaded for the reduction.
Reduction In Share Capital Amounts To Transfer Of Capital Asset Under Income Tax Act : Supreme Court
Case Name: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR v. M/S. JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 63 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 41
The Supreme Court (recently on January 02) reiterated that reduction in share capital is covered under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which talks about transfer of a capital asset. It explained that such reduction would come under the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in the provision.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that this provision provides an inclusive definition of transfer, covering relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right.
Case title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 173
The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the "first offence" compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income tax for 2011-2012 and his compounding application was accepted, it now cannot be accepted.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the "first offence" is the offence committed prior to the show cause notice, which was the case here for both years.
Case Name: K KRISHNAMURTHY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2411 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 202
The Supreme Court, while determining a tax matter, observed that the undisclosed income, under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act, surrendered by the assessee during the search, is not sufficient to levy the penalty.
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS VERSUS M/S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19528/2018
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 214
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust registers under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should check if the charity's proposed activities match its charitable goals, as stated in the Ananda Social case.
The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust does not seem convincing for grant of exemption.
Case Title: The Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution VERSUS B. Gunashekar & Another
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5200 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 429
In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court today (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department.
The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon the Court to intimate the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for verification whether there's a violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
Case : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh vs V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 13205/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 435
The Supreme Court recently advised that the Commissioners of Income Tax should not randomly remand matters in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely by saying that the Assessing Officer was required to do more inquiries.
The Court said that to remand matters on the ground of inadequate inquiry by the AO, the Commissioner must record “abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and prejudice caused to revenue” is necessary.
Case title: Case Title: Shital Fibers Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax (and connected cases)
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.14318 OF 2015
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 606
Answering a reference, the Supreme Court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Income Tax Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the verdict while answering a reference after a matter was referred to the larger bench due to split verdict in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Micro Labs Limited (2015) on the issue of whether deductions claimed under Section 80-IA/80-IB (for industrial profits in certain categories) and Section 80-HHC (for export profits) could be cumulatively allowed.
Cause Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 738
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 24) ruled that the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) is sufficient to attract tax liability for a foreign entity in India, even in the absence of exclusive possession of a fixed place of business. The Court clarified that temporary or shared use of premises, when combined with administrative or operational control, is adequate to establish a PE, thereby triggering income tax liability in India.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed Hyatt International's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order, which had held the company liable to pay income tax in India on income earned through its Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Asian Hotels Ltd. for 20 years, the operator of Hyatt's hotel business in India.
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144C
Cause Title: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VERSUS SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 783
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.
Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred. However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for DRP cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.
Cause Title: VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 851
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Case : Pride Foramer S.A. v Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1015
The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.
Cause Title: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 SURAT VERSUS M. D. INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1111
Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the assessee's right to challenge the assessment order on merits under the Income Tax Act, observed the Supreme Court.
"The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.", a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, dismissing the department's appeal.
Cause Title: NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1193
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) held that any income earned by a statutory corporation outside its core activity of providing long-term finance for industrial, agricultural, or infrastructure development in India cannot qualify for the 40% deduction available under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”).
A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed National Cooperation Development Corporation's appeal, reiterating that only profits directly derived from long-term financing activities, with repayment periods of five years or more for supporting the agricultural sector, are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.
Cause Title: DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. (and connected case)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1206
In a set-back to foreign companies doing business operations in India, the Supreme Court on Monday (December 15) held that all head office expenditure incurred by them outside India, whether common or exclusively for their Indian business operations, must be subjected to the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby ruling out any claim for full deduction.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the grant of full deduction for “head office expenditure” incurred by the respondent non-resident assessees outside India in relation to their business operations in India.
Case Title – Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-III N.D.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2014
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1241
The Supreme Court has held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of a capital asset or alteration of the profit-making structure of the business, and is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
“Thus non-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of the business more efficiently and profitably. Such payment neither results in creation of any new asset nor accretion to the profit earning apparatus of the payer. The enduring advantage, if any, by restricting a competitor in business, is not in the capital field”, the Court observed.
Indirect Tax
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters)
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5642 OF 2009
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 86
In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that prices under the MoU for inter-supply of petroleum products, designed to ensure smooth nationwide distribution, do not constitute "transaction value" and are exempt from excise duty due to their non-commercial nature.
The Court emphasised that the inter-supply arrangement was not solely price-driven but aimed at facilitating seamless distribution, rendering it ineligible for excise duty.
Case Name: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. V. PRISM CEMENT LIMITED & ANR.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.13928 OF 2015
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 198
The Supreme Court yesterday (on February 12) held that though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government's right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the amendment is prospective. Thus, it would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted.
The amended Act nowhere stipulates that rights previously accrued stand nullified or all previous exemptions stand cancelled or revoked., the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.
Benefit Of Input Tax Credit Can't Be Reduced Without Statutory Sanction : Supreme Court
Case Title – State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 221
The Supreme Court recently held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which was notified on January 25, 2014, could not be applied to transactions before April 1, 2014, as the enabling amendment to Section 13 of the parent statute, the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was effective from that date.
This means businesses that bought goods at a higher tax rate before this date are not subject to the limitation imposed by Rule 21(8) when claiming ITC, even if the tax rate was later lowered.
BNSS/CrPC Provisions On Rights Of Arrested Persons Applicable To GST & Customs Acts : Supreme Court
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court on Thursday(February 27) delivered a significant ruling on the powers of arrest under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Customs Act.
The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 27) observed that there was some merit in the allegation that tax officials coerce assesses to pay the Goods and Services Tax with the threat of arrest. This observation was made by the Court on the basis of data.
The Court said that if any person is feeling coerced to pay GST, they can approach the writ court for refund of the tax paid by them under coercion. The Court also said that the officers who indulge in such coercion must be dealt with departmentally.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court has overruled its previous decisions which held that anticipatory bail applications were not maintainable with respect to offences under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Bela Trivedi overruled the two-judge bench judgments in State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer and Another and Bharat Bhushan v. Director General of GST Intelligence, Nagpur Zonal Unit Through Its Investigating officer which held that a person summoned under the GST Act cannot file anticipatory bail application and that the only remedy was to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
An arrest under the Goods and Services Act cannot be carried out merely on the basis of suspicion, the Supreme Court stated. Such an arrest cannot be carried out merely to investigate if a cognizable and non-bailable offence has been committed.
The Court held that the arrest must proceed on the belief supported by reasons relying on material that the conditions specified in sub-section (5) of Section 132 are satisfied. This means that there has to be a satisfaction that a cognizable and non-bailable offence has been committed.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
Dealing with a challenge to penal provisions of the Customs Act, the Supreme Court today observed that 'customs officers' are not 'police officers' and that they must satisfy a higher threshold of "reasons to believe" before arresting an accused.
A bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices MM Sundresh, Bela M Trivedi made the observation while delivering verdict in a batch of 279 petitions challenging the penal provisions in the Customs Act, CGST/SGST Act, etc. as non-compatible with the CrPC and the Constitution.
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of GST Act Provisions On Arrest & Summons
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, which provide for the power to arrest and the power to summon. The Constitutionality of these provisions were challenged on the ground that the Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact them.
The petitioners argued that Article 246-A of the Constitution, while conferring legislative powers on Parliament and State Legislatures to levy and collect GST, does not explicitly authorize the violations thereof to be made criminal offences. Referring to Entry 93 of List I to the Seventh Schedule, it was submitted that the Parliament can enact criminal provisions only for the matters in List I. It was further argued that the power to summon, arrest and prosecute are not ancillary and incidental to the power of levying GST and therefore, are beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament under Article 246-A of the Constitution.
Case title : CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS v. M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6332/2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 361
The Supreme Court recently underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order which allowed an assesee to rectify its form GSTR-1 after missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act. The order was challenged by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Case Title: GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 366
In a key decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50," which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.
The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions.
Case Title: NEHA ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6553 OF 2016
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 423
Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“VAT Act”), held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on the purchase of goods where the subsequent sale of those goods is exempt from tax.
“Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no facility for input tax credit shall be allowed to a dealer with respect to the purchase of any goods where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Act.”, the Court observed.
Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus COMBINED TRADERS
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 432
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision striking down Rule 17(20) of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 (Rajasthan CST Rules) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, noting that the State Government cannot exceed its delegated powers by authorizing cancellation of Form C, which the Central Rules do not permit.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Rajasthan's appeal, which challenged the High Court's decision of declaring Rule 17(2) as ultra vires due to inconsistency between the Central and State Laws. The reason being that the Rajasthan CST Rules allowed the cancellation of Form C if obtained fraudulently, however, the Central Rules (Registration and Turnover Rules, 1957) prescribe Form C but do not provide for its cancellation.
Case Title: M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI – II
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 129-130 OF 2011
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 500
The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as the test report used to justify the reclassification of the petrochemicals, which led to the higher duty.
Case : Vineet Jain vs Union of India
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 513
The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at the High Court and the Magistrate Court denying bail to a person accused of committing offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
The Court observed that in cases like this, bail should normally be granted. The offences alleged against the appellant were under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine.
Case Title: M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOLKATA
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8028 OF 2010
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 517
The Supreme Court yesterday (May 1) ruled that engineering and technical service fees paid by the importer must be included in the assessable value of imported spare parts under the Customs Act, 1962.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld that the 8% technical and engineering fee charged to the appellant(Coal India) should be included in the assessable value for determining customs duty.
Case Title: C.T. KOCHOUSEPH VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 941 – 945 OF 2004 (and connected cases)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
"The challenge to the constitutional validity must be rejected on the basis of the ratio elucidated by this Court in Kandaswami (supra), Hotel Balaji (supra) and Devi Dass (supra)...Hotel Balaji (supra) specifically upholds the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, disagreeing with the opinion/ratio expressed in Goodyear (supra)", said a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, R Mahadevan.
Supreme Court Upholds Kerala's Luxury Tax On Cable TV As Constitutionally Valid
Case Title: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORS.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9301 OF 2013
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 611
The Supreme Court today (May 22) upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and allowed Kerala's appeal, affirming the state's power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”
The Court clarified that the service tax imposed by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not conflict with state taxes on entertainment, and therefore, no constitutional overlap exists between central and state levies.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORS. (and connect cases)
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9301 OF 2013
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 611
While upholding the State's authority to impose entertainment tax on broadcasting services like cable TV, digital streaming, and OTT platforms, the Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State are empowered to levy service tax and entertainment tax, respectively, on assessees such as cable operators and entertainment service providers.
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh held that broadcasting constitutes a form of communication, while entertainment falls under the category of luxuries as outlined in Entry 62 of List II. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, it reasoned that entertainment can be delivered through means of communication, making broadcasting merely incidental to it. As such, it does not directly encroach upon matters within the Union List. Consequently, both taxes function within their respective constitutional spheres, allowing the Centre and the State to concurrently impose service tax and entertainment tax on the activities undertaken by an assessee.
Case Title: M/S PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3833-3835 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 634
The Supreme Court has held that Section 27 of the Customs Act, which requires a person seeking refund of duty to show that the burden was not passed on to the customer, is not applicable when refund is sought of a wrongly invoked bank guarantee.
This is because encashment of bank guarantees by the Customs Department cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. Hence, neither Section 27 nor the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable.
Circular Clarifying Previous Notifications On Fiscal Duty Has Retrospective Effect : Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case no.: SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 OF 2016
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 635
The Supreme Court recently held that a circular/notification issued by the revenue department, clarifying or explaining a fiscal regulation, has to be given retrospective effect.
In the facts of the case at hand, the Court held that a Circular dated 17.09.2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) had to be given retrospective effect as it clarified certain previous notifications on customs duty.
Case : M/S. STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - III
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3816-3817 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 707
The Supreme Court held that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, constitute “Healthcare Services” which were exempted from service tax as per the notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance in 2012 and 2014 under the Finance Act, 1994.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the assessment orders issued against M/s Stemcyte India Therapeutics Ltd for over Rs 2 crores as service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014.
Case Title: M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 727
The Supreme Court upheld the MP High Court's decision to levy the 'entry tax' on the beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (“IMFL”) manufacturers for transporting goods into local areas for sale.
The Court reasoned that the liquor manufacturers "cause entry" of goods into local areas, making them liable for tax under Section 2(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (“M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976”), even if sales occur through state-controlled warehouses.
Cause Title: M/S ASP TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 739
The Supreme Court observed that by mere payment of penalty for the release of the goods detained under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the assessee cannot be held to have waived the right to file a statutory appeal.
The Court ruled that mere payment of penalty for the release of goods detained during transit under the GST regime does not conclude proceedings unless a formal, reasoned order is passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.
Cause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 805
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Cause Title: M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 842
The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.
Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.
Cause Title: M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Citation : 2205 LiveLaw (SC) 852
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 29) ruled that the vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a "public place."
“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3 (“AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act”). If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.”, the court said.
Cause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 860
The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.
Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To LG Electronics For Smart Watch Import From Korea
Cause Title: M/S L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 916
The Supreme Court recently granted relief to LG Electronics India from paying customs duty on imported 'G Watch W7' smartwatches from South Korea, holding that a certificate of origin from a country with which India has a full customs duty exemption agreement is sufficient to claim such exemption.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the LG Electronics appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) order, that declined LG's plea for seeking exemption from custom duty payment for imported watches reasoning that imported watches falls under CTH 8517 good's, which attracted a higher duty, and raised a demand along with penalties.
Cause Title: M/S. SHIV STEELS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 921
The Supreme Court observed that no tax can be imposed by inference or analogy when the taxing statutes do not authorize the imposition of tax. It added that tax authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation periods by administrative sanction.
“In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.”, the court observed.
Case Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja and connected cases
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 922
The Supreme Court recently upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), upholding the HC's view that failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 entitles the person to release of the seized goods.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta further held that provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act does not stop the operation of Section 110(2), which mandates issuance of a show-cause notice within six months of the seizure.
Cause Title: M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 926
The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.19) held that converting imported gas-generating sets (Gensets) into containerized “Power Packs” by placing them in steel containers and fitting them with essential components amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the final product liable to excise duty.
“The process of placing the Genset within the steel container and fitting that container with additional, integral components brings into existence a new, distinct, and marketable commodity. This process would thus amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Act, 1944. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured.”, the court held.
Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & OTHER VERSUS M/S ADANI POWER LTD.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Observing that the movement of goods from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a domestic supply and not an export outside India, the Supreme Court provided relief to Adani Power Ltd. and other entities from paying export duty under the Customs Act, 1962, for the movement of goods from DTA to SEZ.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which ruled that export duty cannot be levied for movement from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to an SEZ. The High Court had held that it was a domestic supply and not an export outside India, therefore exempted from the payment of the export duty.
Supreme Court Dismisses Airports Authority's Appeal Against Service Tax Levy For Cargo Handling
Case : Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 933
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) challenging the levy of service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo, ruling that such services fall within the ambit of “taxable services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that while “handling of export cargo” is excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the Act, cargo handling service nonetheless qualifies as a “taxable service” in terms of sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2004.
Cause Title: M/S. ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) held that the ink and chemicals used in printing the lottery tickets is a taxable item under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (“Act”).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets and had been taxed on the value of ink and chemicals used in the printing process. While the Appellate Authority and Tribunal set aside the levy holding these materials were consumed rather than a transferrable good, the High Court restored the tax leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court
Case Title: THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTD
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2042-2047/2015
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1008
The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.
“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.
Transfer Of Title In Immovable Property Doesn't Attract Service Tax : Supreme Court
Case : Commissioner of Service Tax v M/s Elegant Developers
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1088
The Supreme Court has clarified that an activity which merely involves the transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale cannot be treated as a “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, such transactions lie outside the ambit of service tax.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi against M/s Elegant Developers, a partnership firm based in Allahabad. The Revenue had challenged a 2019 decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had set aside a tax demand of over Rs 10 crore against the firm.
Cause Title: LIPI BOILERS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1092
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) dismissed the Revenue Department's excise duty demand against a company that had manufactured and erected a large boiler at a customer's site, holding that the full contract value could not be subjected to central excise duty. The Court clarified that parts bought out externally and supplied to the customer for assembly, but not actually used by the manufacturer, would not attract excise duty.
“we arrive at the finding that the final product that emerges as a result of performing the obligations under the contract, does not constitute excisable goods under the Act, 1944. Consequently, the base value of the boiler on which excise duty is to be levied, cannot be equated with the total contract price. Therefore, the price of the bought out parts cannot be included in the value of the boiler for the purpose of computing central excise duty under the Act, 1944.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta while allowing the company's appeal against the CESTAT order which upheld the Revenue's demand for additional excise duty on bought out item.
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1161
The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers cannot claim central excise duty exemption for processed cotton fabrics if power is used at any stage of the manufacturing chain, even when the work is carried out through separate units. The Court restored a duty and penalty demand that had been set aside by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
To claim excise duty exemption for 'cotton fabrics' processed without the aid of power or steam, the manufacturing stages must be completely independent; if the final product cannot emerge without each interlinked process, including those involving power, the exemption cannot be availed.
Case : The State of Karnataka v Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1167
In a significant judgment that will have wide ramifications for hostel and paying guest (PG) accommodation sectors, the Supreme Court held that the exemption from Goods and Services Tax (GST) available for renting residential dwellings continues to apply even when the lessee sub-leases the premises to provide hostel or PG accommodation. The Court ruled that the exemption under Entry 13 of the GST Exemption Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.06.2017 does not require the lessee to personally use the property as a residence, so long as the ultimate use of the premises is residential in nature.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan delivered the ruling while deciding a dispute concerning a four-storeyed residential building with 42 rooms in Karnataka. The building's owner had leased it to M/s DTwelve Spaces Private Limited, a company operating as an aggregator providing long-term hostel accommodation to students and working women. The tax authorities took the view that GST at 18 percent was payable on the rental transaction because the lessee was a commercial entity and did not itself occupy the premises as a residence. Both the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) upheld this interpretation. However, the Karnataka High Court set aside the rulings of AAAR and AAR, holding that the GST exemption will apply. Challenging the High Court's judgment ,the revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.
OTHER REPORTS
'Badly Drafted Petition' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging TDS System Of Income Tax Act
Case title: Ashwini Upadhyay v Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) No. 20/2025
The Supreme Court today (January 24) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging the provisions of the Income Tax Act which impose an obligation on private employers to deduct tax at source (TDS) on the salaries paid by them.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay was "badly drafted" and asked him to approach the High Court.
Case Name: M/S HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS.
Case no.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025
The Supreme Court is to decide whether the time limit for adjudicating show cause notice and passing an order can be extended by the issuance of notifications under Section 168-A of the GST Act. This provision empowers the Government to issue notification for extending the time limit prescribed under the Act which cannot be complied with due to force majeure.
“The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.,” remarked the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
Case title: COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
Case no.: U. P. LUCKNOW vs. M/S SAMSUNG (INDIA) ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.| Diary No. - 20066/2021
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.
The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008.
Case title: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BRIJ SYSTEMS LTD & ORS.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6334/2025
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the rectification of bonafide errors by the assessee in GSTR-1 Form despite missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act 2017. Here the assessee wanted to rectify the returns filed for Financial Year 2017-2018 in Form GSTR-1. The application to rectify was rejected on the ground that the time to rectify had ended.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Challenge To West Bengal Taxes On Entry Of Goods Act
Case Title – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7295/2025
The Supreme Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas Act, 2012, as amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, along with related Rules and notifications.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan recently issued notice returnable on April 22, 2025 in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Finance Act amended various provisions of the Entry Tax Act with retrospective effect.
Let GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme Court
Case Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 258 of 2021
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order after briefly hearing Advocate Charu Mathur, who appeared for the petitioner. During the hearing, Advocate Mathur submitted, “If Facebook provides some services or OpenAI provides some services, there is no way to track those by the Indian Government and we are losing out on a lot of revenue.”
Cause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..
The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.
Case : Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and others v. Interglobe Aviation Ltd
Case no.: Diary No. 49140-2025
The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that exempted the airline from paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported aircraft parts that were repaired and serviced abroad.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to InterGlobe Aviation while hearing the department's plea against the March 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed a portion of a customs notification that mandated IGST payment on the import of repaired aircraft engines and components.
Supreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GST
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 52380/2025
Case Title – Union Of India & Anr. v. M/S Life Sciences Chemicals & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a “transfer of land” or amounts to a “supply of service” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with Centre's plea challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held that assignment of leasehold rights in land and building does not amount to a taxable supply under the GST Act.
Case Title: FEDERATION OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Diary No. 60671/2025
The Federation of Automobile Dealers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking relief related to compensation cess input tax credit worth Rs.2500 crores, which stands locked in dealers ledgers as a consequence of recent revision in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
Briefly put, a notification issued on September 17 scrapped the compensation cess on motor vehicles. This was done, as per the FADA, "without providing any transitional or refund mechanism". Therefore, dealers' accumulated compensation cess lapsed on September 22 and may not be carried forward.
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTD
Case Number: Diary No. 47976/2025
The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL VERSUS SADHUMARGI SHANTKRANTI JAIN
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the registration of a trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which recognizes it as a charitable institution for income tax exemption purposes, is sufficient to entitle its donors to claim tax deduction benefits under Section 80G of the Act.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has issued notice on a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that once a charitable organization is registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be denied approval under Section 80G(5) for providing tax deduction benefits to its donors, merely on the ground that it also undertakes religious activities.
Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Case Number: Diary No. 49079/2025
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.
The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand. A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order, observing "We find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund Appeal
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 57088/2025
The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.
Supreme Court Upholds View That Eden Gardens Not A 'Public Place' For Levy Of Advertisement Tax
Case Title: THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. Versus THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL AND ORS.
Case no.: SLP(C) No. 28566/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Calcutta High Court order which held that Eden Gardens stadium was not a "public place" for the purpose of levying advertisement tax under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for petitioner-Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for respondents.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD
The Supreme Court recently criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that the Department, despite having an entire team of legal experts, failed to act on its own lawyers' advice and instead allowed time to be wasted in unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Department's explanation for the massive delay, noting that "no one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process" for filing appeals within the statutory timeframe.
Supreme Court Leaves Open Question Whether Customs Can Seize Goods Which Left Port
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO VERSUS EPSILON EYE CARE PVT. LTD.
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) view that once goods are cleared from the port, customs authorities lose their power to confiscate them for violations such as non-compliance with license requirements.
However, the bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan left open the question whether the Customs Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port.
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Income Tax Department for filing yet another Special Leave Petition (SLP) in a matter already settled by the Court, calling it a frivolous exercise that contributes to mounting pendency.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an SLP challenging a Karnataka High Court order on tax deduction at source (TDS) liability, an issue the Supreme Court had already decided last year in a case involving Vodafone Idea, holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators were not liable for TDS.
Case Title: KULDIPAK RAJESH PRASHAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case no.: W.P.(C) No. 1140/2025
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a petition filed by a person suffering visual impairment seeking that the government revive its GST Concession scheme for the purchase of cars by persons with orthopaedic disability and extend it to all Persons with Disabilities, irrespective of the nature of their disability.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, who argued that the Union has taken different stands before different High Courts, which has resulted in conflicting opinions on the government's now-discontinued scheme. The counsel also informed the Court that the scheme existed in one form or another since 1999 but came to be withdrawn in 2025.