SUPREME COURTCentral Excise Exemption For Cotton Fabrics Not Available If Any Interlinked Process Uses Power : Supreme CourtCause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers cannot claim central excise duty exemption for processed cotton fabrics if power is used at any stage...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.
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 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 The counsel also informed the Court that the scheme existed in one form or another since 1999 but came to be withdrawn in 2025.
Case : The State of Karnataka v Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish
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.
Cause Title: NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
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)
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
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.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case title: M/S Anish Transport Company v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 324 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that evasion of tax cannot be attributed to the transporter when consignor accepts error in loading goods.
Certain goods were intercepted in transit from Dehradun to Delhi. After notices were issued to the cosigner/ consignee, the goods were released in their favour. Subsequently, an order alleging intention to evade tax under Section 129 of the GST Act was passed against the petitioner who was merely a transporter of the goods. Appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
GST | Allahabad High Court Grants Stay On Composite Show Cause Notice For Multiple Assessment Years
Case Title: M/S S.D. Freshners Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Mahesh Prasad And Another Versus Union Of India And 5 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 7500 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted stay on composite show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence where multiple assessment years have been clubbed in one show cause notice.
Petitioner approached the High Court against a single show cause notice issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad for tax period starting from August 2019 to September 2023. It was pleaded that the same could not be done as each tax period is a separate cause of action.
Case Title: Adboulevard Media Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut And Another
On Thursday, Allahabad High Court directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut for filing a misleading personal affidavit before the Court despite being given 2 opportunities.
Noting that the impugned order did not show any consideration of the circulars and only quoted a report signed by an appropriate office, Justice Piyush Agrawal observed “This shows the functioning of the GST Department. The officers has courage not only to pass the perverse order but filed his personal affidavit trying to mislead the Court stating that after due consideration the order has been passed.”
Case Title: M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2707 of 2025
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that the provisions of Information Technology Act regarding dispatch and receipt of service are not applicable to service made under Section 169 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The six modes of service provided under Section 169(1) of the State/Central GST Act are: (a) tendering directly or by messenger; (b) dispatch by speed post, etc. with acknowledgement due; (c) sending communication by email; (d) by making available on the common portal; (e) by publication in a newspaper and; (f) by affixation.
Case Title: M/S Prakash Medical Stores v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 5865 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be granted to a party for filing appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act where a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act was filed within time.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran held, “to apply the underlying principle of Section 14 Limitation Act, wherever an application seeking rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record may be filed within time, as may have been done in the present case, the application of the underlying principle of Section 14 Limitation Act, may not be examined with a microscope, any further. To the extent that application is filed 'bona fide' in 'good faith' and is pursued, that principle would apply, without doubt. The only exception to that principle may be-where the application seeking rectification of a mistake is itself filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 161 of the Act. There no such benefit may arise.”
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Indubaala Enterprises LLP v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case No: W.P. Nos. 31323, 31324 & 31330 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stands deemed withdrawn once the registered dealer files the pending returns along with payment of tax and applicable late fee, even if such returns are filed beyond the initially prescribed period.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the assessee, Indubaala Enterprises LLP, assailing multiple assessment orders on the ground of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.
Case Title: M/s Ushabala Chits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.14745 of 2021
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that interest and penalty collected by chit fund companies from defaulting subscribers for delayed payment of instalments are not taxable under GST.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether the interest/penalty collected for the delay in payment of the monthly subscription by the members forms a supply under GST.
Case Title: M/s Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos.6319 & 6321 & 5089 of 2010
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Value Added Tax (VAT) under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (AP VAT) cannot be levied on sales beyond 12 nautical miles, as such transactions fall outside the State's territorial jurisdiction.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar stated that neither the State Legislature nor the Central Legislature would have the power to levy tax on the sale of goods made beyond the territorial waters of India.
Bombay HC
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: 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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Case Title: United Spirits Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of State Tax-II & Appellate Authority, South Goa & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 229 of 2025
The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a writ petition filed by United Spirits Ltd. challenging the levy of interest on delayed payment of VAT on sales of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), Rectified Spirit (RS) and High Bouquet Spirit (HBS) for the financial year 2019–20.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S. Chavan held that interest under Section 25(4) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is compensatory in nature and becomes automatically payable once tax is not deposited within the prescribed time, irrespective of any claimed ambiguity on taxability.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Saraf v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WPO/646/2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless incriminating material relating to the assessee is found during a search and both the assessing officers (the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person) record the necessary satisfaction.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any incriminating material had been found against the assessee in the search and seizure operation.
Case Title: Sandhya Rani Jana and Anr. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Case Number: F.M.A. 70 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court held that when a victim's income tax return is filed, it is a reliable and authentic basis for assessing income in motor accident claims. The bench granted compensation of Rs. 39 Lakh to the claimants (mother and father) of the victim.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury stated that once an Income Tax Return is accepted by the Income Tax Authority, it becomes an authentic document with regard to the income of the victim.
Case Detail: Bidyut Autotech Private Limited and another v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ)
The Calcutta High Court in a matter concerning non-disclosure of Cess in monthly return GSTR-3B which came to be rectified by filing annual return in GSTR-09, has set aside appellate order. The High Court has directed the Authority to revisit the matter and consider subsequent rectification in GSTR-09 of initial error of non-disclosure.
In an order dated November 26, 2025 the Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai noted that at the time of finalization of the books of account, Petitioners realized their mistake and disclosed the entire amount of CESS in the annual report filed in form GSTR-9. The Calcutta High Court emphasizing on effect of Form GSTR-9 observed that non-consideration of the aspect that Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the Cess paid remained unavailed would contravene the Constitutional Principles. It was also stated that although Section 44(2) Amendment set a 3-year filing date for annual returns but same was without penalties or prohibition, therefore, late filing cannot be treated as barred.
Case Title: Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4) & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 21228 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible when it is based on the same survey material that the Assessing Officer (AO) has already examined and accepted in earlier proceedings.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that the reassessment proceeding is clearly impermissible…It would be a clear case of “change of opinion”. Indeed, the principle that assessment of a given assessee for a given assessment year cannot be reopened by the relevant Assessing Officer on the ground of change of opinion is usually applied in the case of the same assessee for the same assessment year but there is no reason why such a principle cannot be extended and applied to a case like the one at hand.
Case Title: M/s. JJ Traders v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2144 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs) circulars are binding on departmental officers but cannot be used as a protective shield in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or invoices is in doubt.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that it cannot be doubted that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs would be binding on all its officers but at the same time there can also not be any cavil to the proposition that a circular issued by the Board whether instructive or clarificatory or otherwise has to operate within the statutory framework and has to be applied only when there is no doubt raised regarding the genuineness of the consignment and the transaction and the documents are in order.
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19155 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that the GST authorities do not have the power under Section 67 of the CGST Act to seal or seize cash. Accordingly, the bench directed the immediate de-sealing of Rs. 24 lakhs.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined whether the GST authorities have the power to seize cash under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner SGST, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2192 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of the registration certificate of the supplier in question, no other ground has been mentioned by the appellate authority as a ground for denial of Input Tax Credit.
Case Title: Shree Shyam Steel Co. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST and Central Excise
Case Number: CEXA 60 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court held that the law of limitation is not meant to extinguish substantive rights and must be applied with a liberal approach where delay is caused by bona fide conduct.
The bench condoned the delay of 2262 days in filing the CESTAT appeal, holding that the assessee's bona fide pursuit of settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) was a valid ground and that condonation of delay could not be denied on such a basis.
GST | Stereo System In E-Rickshaw An Input, Calcutta High Court Grants Refund To Manufacturer
Case Name: Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court, in a matter concerning admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchase of 'stereo system' to be used in E-rickshaw, has granted Refund claim of Unutilized Input Tax Credit under inverted duty structure amounting to approximately ₹8 lakhs.
The Calcutta High Court was called-upon to decide whether "Stereo System" was an input/ raw material in manufacturing of E-rickshaw covered by HSN-87031090. Also, whether ITC involved in purchase of "stereo system" would be eligible for refund vide clause (ii) of first proviso to Section 54 (3) of the WBGST/CGST Act.
GST | Calcutta High Court Quashes Excess ITC Demand Pertaining To Initial Years Of GST Rollout
Case Name: Soumyendu Bikash Jana vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority dismissing appeal against Section 73 demand, preliminary, “without appreciating the worth of the documents”.
Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that there was 'total non-consideration of material on record' upon tracing through the paper book as well as relevant documents annexed to the writ petition which were also placed on record before the Appellate Authority (AA).
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise Bolpur Commissionerate v. M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number: CEXA 31 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court held that statutory interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is not leviable where the entire transaction is revenue-neutral and the duty paid is available as Cenvat Credit to downstream units, causing no loss to the exchequer.
Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar stated that the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the situation is revenue-neutral, inasmuch as the duty paid by the assessee was available as Cenvat credit to its downstream units and there is no net loss of revenue to the exchequer.
Case Title: Mark Steels Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors.
Case Number: WPO 584 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that the mere reopening of an assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as a change of opinion if the earlier proceedings were dropped due to lack of evidence.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that on the basis of a change of opinion of the assessing officer, a notice under Section 148 of the said Act cannot be issued. For a case of change of opinion to be established an assessing officer must arrive at an opinion that there has been no escapement of income on the ground noted therein.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Deepak Pandey vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Case No.: TAXC No. 153 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that service tax deposited during the course of investigation cannot be denied refund merely on the ground of limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, especially when the department itself later drops proceedings and acknowledges non-liability.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed a tax appeal filed by a service tax assessee challenging the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ₹14.89 Lakh.
Case Title: Deepak Pandey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Case No.: TAXC No. 153 of 2025
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has allowed a service tax appeal filed by an assessee, setting aside orders passed by the department and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had rejected a refund claim as time-barred under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 .
A Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing an appeal challenging CESTAT's order that denied refund of ₹14.89 lakh deposited by the assessee during an ongoing service tax investigation.
Delhi HC
Case Detail: South East Asia Company vs. Superintendent, CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17469/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of a consolidated appeal in a matter where a 'common and single' order was issued, although the demand pertained to multiple financial years.
In an order dated November 18, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain allowed the Petitioner to take recourse to a single consolidated appeal against consolidated GST demands raised via one order while stating that whether Section 74 was correctly invoked was a matter for appeal.
Case Title: Vaneeta Impex Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 15169/2025 & CM APPL.62228/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that when a taxpayer has already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for the same disputed tax amount before the State GST Appellate Authority, the Central GST authorities cannot insist on another separate pre-deposit for the same amount while filing a second appeal.
The Bench stated that the law does not permit duplication of pre-deposit for the same tax demand, and therefore the taxpayer should be allowed to file an appeal without paying again.
Case title: MS Jamil Trading Co Thrg Proprietor Mr Jamil Ahmed v. Union Of India Thrg The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10513/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Authorities for issuing a “strange” personal hearing notice to an assessee, which said that the assessee need not attend the hearing as the notice is issued only for the purpose of uploading final order.
“The personal hearing notice is also quite strange to say the least that no personal hearing was granted before the Commissioner Appeals but a hearing was fixed for uploading of the order. Such a practice is inexplicable and deserves to be re-looked at as no useful purpose is served by giving a personal hearing for the purpose of uploading an order,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said.
Case title: Monish Kansal Through Spa Ritik Agnihotri v. Commissioner Of Custom & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14621/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the high-value Rolex watch of a NRI, citing Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017). In the said judgment, the top court had held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The Petitioner being a permanent U.S. resident, this matter would be covered clearly by the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani.”
Case title: Monish Mohammed v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2376/2024
The Delhi High Court recently permitted a labourer, working in the middle-east, to redeem gold bars confiscated by the Customs Department, after a four-year delay.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar took note of the Petitioner's financial status, which purportedly prevented him from paying the redemption fine in time.
Case title: Sanchit Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs (and connected matter)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10380/2025 (and connected matter)
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs on two Petitioners who falsely claimed that their old gold jewellery was seized by the Customs Department upon their arrival from Dubai.
On production of the gold items before it, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “it is clear that the gold items are not used gold jewellery of the Petitioners, and the same are absolutely brand new jewellery, which is stated to have been purchased by the Petitioners in Dubai and were being brought to India.”
Case title: Javed Ali Gouse v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15765/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot make a passenger or his lawyer sign an undertaking for waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, when they appear for appraisement of seized articles.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with an NRI's plea, whose gold chain was seized by the Customs on his arrival from Saudi Arabia.
Case title: M/S Eves Fashion v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17991/2025
In a rare instance of relief, the Delhi High Court has directed the GST Department to restore the registration of a trader, cancelled over three years ago, citing the medical issues and dispute with the Chartered Accountant which prevented it from acting earlier.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Mini Pushkarna observed, “The present case presents a peculiar set of facts, where the Petitioner has had medical reasons and a dispute with his Chartered accountant, which led to GST Registration being cancelled. Although under ordinary circumstances, the Court is not inclined to condone delay, the present case indicates that the Petitioner is a bona fide trader who intends to continue his business and requires his GST Registration to be restored for the said purpose.”
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi vs. TC Global India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SERTA20/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that TC Global, operating as an App-based platform offering admission support solutions like promotional and marketing services, advertisements, roadshows, fairs, counselling to foreign universities, against payment in foreign exchange would qualify as 'Export of Service' instead of 'Intermediary Service'.
In a judgment dated November 28, 2025, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar affirmed CESTAT Delhi order that held Respondent not liable to service tax as an 'intermediary' in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. On the aspect that activities were promotional or marketing and not arranging admissions as 'agent' the High Court explained how a consistent legal position had been set by the decisions of Global Opportunities, Ernst &Young Limited, K.C. Overseas wherein Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge by Department.
Case title: Roovi v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9063/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady but the gold is claimed by three ladies. The ownership of these bangles would have to be determined. These issues cannot be gone into in a Writ petition as these are disputed questions of fact.”
Case title: Nazarmammet Nuryyyalev v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13936/2023
The Delhi High Court has condoned the delay of three years by a Turkmenistanian national in redeeming his gold jewellery from the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar granted the relief noting that “the Petitioner had visited India for medical treatment of his wife and the gold jewellery was for payment of the same, as also the fact that the Petitioner is not a habitual offender”.
Case Name: Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
Case No. : W.P.(C) 12619/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition pertaining to service of notice through speed post where delivery reports could not be found, sets aside ex-parte demand order creating a demand to the tune of Rs. 1 crore.
In an order dated November 24, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined whether notices for personal hearing (Jan–Mar 2024) were properly served. On the aspect of service of notice, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority since Petitioner was 'not heard' and amount deposited was 'higher' than pre-deposit amount.
Case title: Manpar Exim INC v. Additional Director, DGGI And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18204/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that pre-SCN Consultative Notice prima facie serves no purpose in large-scale GST fraud cases involving multiple entities and a complex maze of transactions.
Pre-SCN consultation was mandatory under Rule 142 (1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It prescribed that a proper officer shall, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer.
Case title: Neeraj Guglani v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2579/2024
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition do indicate seriousness, which required surgery for cervical OPLL. Presumption can surely be drawn that the medical condition has prevented the filing of ITR within time.”
Case title: M/S A V Metals Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner CGST & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18230/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST Department to exercise caution when mentioning financial year, other relevant dates in the show cause notices and orders issued by it to a taxpayer.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar sounded the note of caution after coming across a case where the authority inadvertently mentioned the due date for filing reply to the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner as 28th August, 2025, instead of 28th August, 2024.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 353/2025 + ITA 354/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of any physical presence, virtual services rendered by a foreign law firm in India would not constitute taxable service under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Article 5(6) of the DTAA only contemplates rendering of services by employees present within the country. If that be so, it is not for this Court to analyse the status or merits of a virtual service permanent establishment which does not find mention either in the DTAA or in the domestic Act. As such, the contention of the Revenue that a virtual service permanent establishment of the assessee has been established for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 cannot be accepted.”
Case title: Dhruv Mittal v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12774/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for repeatedly delaying implementation of its orders for release of articles seized from passengers arriving from abroad.
Calling out the authority's “delaying tactics”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar warned of “stringent action” along with imposition of costs on errant officials.
Case title: Amandeep Singh Proprietor, Guru Kripa Enterprises v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 10 (1)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17047/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with income reassessment action initiated by the tax authorities merely on the ground that two successive notices under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were issued to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “as the fresh notice dated 13.06.2025 was issued with the same contents, the previous notice automatically becomes infructuous. Thus, no jurisdictional issue arises.”
Case title: Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 241/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals cannot remand assessment back to the Assessing Officer, unless it decides the jurisdictional validity of AO's order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Section 144 empowers the deals with the assessment of a taxpayer that is carried out by the Assessing Officer (AO) as per his best judgement and based on all relevant information gathered.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. M/S Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: ITA No. 690/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against M/s Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd., reaffirming that no substantial question of law arises where the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) conclusions are unsupported by cogent evidence and the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee in earlier years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing an appeal filed by the Revenue for AY. 2012-2013, stated that that identical issues had been initiated by the Revenue since Assessment Year 2007-08 and had been consistently decided against it.
Case title: M/S Sirez Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 405/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that internal disputes between the Directors of a company is not 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, preventing timely filing of its Income Tax Return, particularly in absence of convincing evidence.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Madhu Jain observed, “The internal dispute among the Directors of the company is not a genuine hardship, which can be the ground on which the delay can be condoned. Even otherwise, we are of the view, the dispute between the Directors, when the company is an ongoing concern cannot be the reason to not to file the ITR which is a statutory obligation on the part of the company.”
Case Title: Clyde Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4400/2022
The Delhi High Court held that legitimate transactional Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied when the assessee was unable to file TRAN-1 due to a GST portal glitch during the shift to the GST regime. The bench noted that since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month.
The bench, consisting of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, stated that due to a glitch in the GST portal, the assessee could not file the form TRAN-01, and since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month. Hence, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit of the ITC due to mere technical glitches or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently.
Case Detail: National Fregrance vs. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court in a matter involving export of mouth freshner/pan masala, where two differing Test Reports were issued and refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was denied, has flagged validity of Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) test reports.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing writ petitions filed by Exporters/Petitioners of tobacco products including pan masala and mouth fresheners who had challenged the letter issued by Customs directing not to issue IGST refund basis test report classifying their product as Gutka . The Petitioners put forth that second test report which arrived at a conclusion that products imported were 'Gutka' and not 'Mouth Freshners Pan Masala' was not tenable in absence of drawl of fresh samples.
Case Detail: Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (Refund), Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & ORS.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a plea by Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) over denial of an estimated refund of over Rs. 900 crores of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Customs duty on re-imported aircraft parts that were repaired abroad. The Customs Writ Petition filed on December 11, 2025 was mentioned before a Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain.
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹45.36 Crore GST Demand Against NBCC After Finance Ministry Clarification
Case Title: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a Rs 45.36 crore GST demand raised against NBCC (India) Ltd, a state-owned construction and project management company under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in connection with the redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain set aside the demand after relying on a clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance, which stated that the Union Ministry itself was the principal supplier of leasing services from the project and that NBCC acted only as its implementing agency.
Case Detail: JK India (Fabs) vs. Union of India
Case No.: W.P.(C)-14644/2022
The Delhi High Court in a matter where importer could not avail Infrastructure Cess exemption due to technical glitch, has directed the Customs Department to re-assess and refund the excess Infrastructure Cess of ₹55,876.29 paid by the Petitioner on imported electrically operated golf carts.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, observed that since Electronically Operated Golf Carts qualified for exemption from payment of Infrastructure Cess, the excess amount paid cannot be held back.
Case Name: Manikjeet Singh Kals vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the adjudication process in a matter involving validity of a Show Cause Notice which was signed by an Officer, but portal reflected the same under the name of another Officer.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain relegated the Petitioner to avail remedy of appeal against order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Delhi (South), CGST before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram. The Delhi High Court observed that when there were multiple parties involved and Show Cause Notices have to be adjudicated, the Adjudicating Authority was fixed on the basis of the jurisdiction which has the highest tax demand.
Case Detail: MD. Aniqul Islam VS. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Writ Petitions challenging GST Summons issued by the Enforcement Agency, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) alleging clandestine trading of tobacco on 'merits'.
In a judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, deliberated on the interplay between Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Delhi High Court made observations on how 'Summons' for the purpose of 'Inquiry' shall be deemed 'Judicial Proceeding'.
Case title: Varner Retail Services South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Division - Okhla, Central Goods And Service Tax (Delhi South) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12049/2023
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retail business' plea seeking benefit of government's tax amnesty scheme for a second show cause notice issued to it post the cut-off date, in pursuance of the first SCN.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain clarified that mere reference to earlier SCN doesn't make subsequent SCN eligible under Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDR Scheme).
Case Name: Aggarwal Construction Co. Through Its Proprietor Mr.Sanjeev Aggarwal vs. Commissioner CGST
In yet another writ petition, concerning works contract services provided to Delhi Jal Board, where its status as a 'Local Authority' was called-into-question, the Delhi High Court has stayed the summary Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that few similar disputes relating to whether when rendering works contract services to Delhi Jal Board, the Construction Company treated it as a 'Local Authority' and paid GST at concessional rate of 12%.
Case title: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union Of India & Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8191/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that approval of collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers is only required in cases where tax evaded is less than the threshold limit of ₹25 Lakh.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “the appropriate authority for initiating the prosecution proceedings would be the sanctioning authority i.e., the PCIT and not the collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers since the tax to be evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lacs.”
Case title: M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2281/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the GST Department cannot raise fresh demands for a period prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, after the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain held, “no demand can be raised after the resolution plan has been approved ,in respect of a period prior thereto.”
Case title: M/S Truespices India Inc v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18966/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs authorities to consider releasing the bank guarantee of a city-based pan masala exporter, forfeited after conflicting lab reports about adulteration of its export products with tobacco.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that when no objections were found in the first lab test report (CRCL), “the circumstances which warranted the issuance of the second CRCL report are completely unknown and it does not specify as to why the same were issued.”
Case title: Mohit Mann v. UoI
Case no.: REVIEW PET. 621/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under the garb of attending weddings where wearing gold jewellery is a common affair, a foreigner of Indian origin cannot be permitted to bring half kg gold jewellery to India.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar further added that there was no explanation for the Petitioner, a US citizen, to bring 17 high value mobile phones (iPhones) to India and walk through the green channel.
Case title: Navneet Bansal v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4723/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the precedents barring invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST/ ITC transactions equally apply to cases of fraudulent CENVAT Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction…In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal. In the opinion of this Court, the same shall be applicable to cases of CENVAT Credit.”
Can GST Be Levied On Medicines Supplied During In-Patient Treatment? Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Detail: Escorts Heart Institute And Research Centre Limited vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit
The Delhi High Court will examine whether GST can be demanded on medicines and consumables supplied to patients as part of inpatient treatment.
The court issued notice in a writ petition filed by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare, challenging a GST demand of Rs 6.66 crore, along with interest and penalty.
Income Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram Vs. Deepak Kumar Aggarwal
Case No.: ITA No. 742/2025 CM APPL. 78543/2025 CM APPL. 78544/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which had rejected a reassessment notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the six-year block period under Section 153C must be computed from the date when seized documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the “other person,” and not from the date of search on the original assessee.
Case title: M/S J.K. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh. Jai Kishan Bansal v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8293/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and the commissionerate is decided, depending upon the monetary demands that are proposed to be raised and the manner in which the investigation would have proceeded.”
Case title: M/S Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17289/2025
The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to be reflected in the order or in any other communication like a Show Cause Notice, failing which there is no way of knowing as to who has passed the order.”
Performance Incentives Earned By Advertising Agency From Media Firms Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Delhi Iv Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate v. M/S Nexus Alliance Advertising And Marketing Pvt Ltd
Case no.: SERTA 36/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the incentives received by an advertising agency from media firms for achieving benchmark targets is not susceptible to levy of service tax.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “achieving targets or revenue benchmarks are part of the service that is already being rendered and since there is no additional service to the media house, it cannot be held that the incentives which are given by the media houses would be liable to service tax as it constitutes a 'business auxiliary service'.”
Case Name: ICICI Bank Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
In yet another writ petition by ICICI Bank, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to ICICI Bank in a demand pertaining to charged levied by the Bank for not maintaining a Minimum Average Balance (MAB).
As is the norm in the banking sector, while opening a bank account, the customer signs an Account Opening Form post which the banking relationship is activated. One of the conditions set out in the Form is that the customer must maintain a MAB in its account.
Case title: Eastern Broadcast Solutions Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Import) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3434/2017
The Delhi High Court recently upheld the import duty imposed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission on a company authorised by BCCI to provide broadcast equipment and associated services for covering the Indian Premier League in 2012.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that under normal circumstances, this duty would have been liable to be refunded to the Petitioner as the import was merely temporary in nature.
Case title: Sayara v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18588/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for wasting public resources by withholding seized goods despite an adjudication order already having directed its unconditional release, eventually leading to avoidable litigation.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The present is a case which shows how the resources of the Customs Department are completely being wasted away in such matters.”
Case title: Pranij Heights India Pvt Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14733/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “usually, the Customs Department ought to intimate any extension which is granted, to the parties concerned. But this would not be a fatal error in the present case as the communication of the same is not mandated in the provision, i.e., Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the authorities must provide exemption from GST on air purifiers, considering the air pollution situation in the national capital as an “emergency.”
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a PIL to declare air-purifiers as “medical devices” and remove imposition of 18% GST on them.
Case title: M/S RR Fashion v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19145/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because DRI headquarters or Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) are located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction upon it to deal with Customs disputes arising in Tamil Nadu.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with the case of Petitioners, situated in Chennai, but challenging seizure memos in Delhi on the ground that its goods were tested at CRCL, Delhi.
Software Receipts Can't Be Taxed On PE Assumption Already Rejected By ITAT: Delhi High Court
Case title: Zscaler Inc v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10556/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that software receipts cannot be subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) on the assumption of a Permanent Establishment (PE) when such an assumption has already been rejected by ITAT, setting aside a withholding certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Zscaler Inc, a US-based software company, challenging the Assessing Officer's order granting TDS certificate (withholding certificate) under Section 197 at 8.75% on payments received from company's Indian customers.
Case title: Rajesh Gupta & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 31 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12433/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120-day period prescribed under the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deciding an assessee's request for release of seized assets is not mandatory, and a decision taken beyond the said period does not automatically become invalid.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release jewellery seized during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act.
Case Detail: Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi High Court, in a matter involving claim of Customs Duty exemption on import of Enzyme linked Immuno Absorbent Assay (ELISA) Kits for antibiotic testing in food as 'diagnostic kits' will hear the plea by food safety importers in January 2026.
Recently, a Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing an appeal by the importer against denial of the exemption by Delhi, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Case Detail: Chinu Kumar vs. Directorate General of Goods and Services Intelligence
The Delhi High Court on Friday, December 26 2025 has granted bail to an Accountant allegedly involved in running fictitious firms and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,00,000.
A Vacation Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan found this a fit case for regular bail noting 'no previous involvements' with co-accused already released on bail in 2024 in Bail Application No. 1968/2024. Further, from the status report the Delhi High Court inferred that the main beneficiary was MBook Technology (now Metal Book Technologies private Limited) with Mr. Pulkit Baldev and Mr. Aman Tibrewal at its helm.
Delhi High Court Allows Use Of Transitional CENVAT Credit For Mandatory Pre-Deposit Before CESTAT
Case Name: Army Welfare Housing Organisation vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court, in a 'rare' scenario where an appeal was sought to be admitted before the CESTAT on the strength of pre-deposit made using through DRC-03, has clarified that pre-deposit was partial component of the demand just as tax, interest and penalty.
In a recent judgment dated December 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court dealt with whether CENVAT credit transitioned into the GST regime as on July 01, 2017 could be utilised for the purpose of making pre-deposit or not.
Case title: Sanjeev Maggu v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5184/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs officials discharging their duties in an official capacity are not liable to be cross-examined as a matter of right during adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while partially allowing a writ petition challenging denial of Petitioner's request to cross-examine certain persons in a customs duty evasion case.
Delhi High Court Holds ICC Trademark Rights Under LG Sponsorship Agreement Attract Royalty TDS
Case Title: M/S LG Electronics India P.Ltd & Anr. Vs. Director of Income Tax(International Taxation) & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 15181/2004
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Income Tax Department's decision to treat a portion of sponsorship payments made for ICC cricket events as taxable royalty.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar refused to interfere with an order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which had held that one-third of the USD 11 million paid by LG to Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), Singapore, was attributable to the “right to use” ICC trademarks and logos, and therefore liable to tax as royalty at 15% under Section 9(1)(vi) read with the India–Singapore DTAA.
Case title: Makemytrip India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 16 1 Delhi & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19288/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside reassessment proceedings initiated against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the notices issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were unreasoned.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar allowed the writ petition filed by the company, which had challenged the reassessment action relating to an alleged unexplained receipt of over ₹50 crore, purportedly arising from information obtained during a search conducted in the case of a third party.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax-1), New Delhi v. Exl Service.Com Inc (Presently Known As Exl Service Com Llc)
Case no.: ITA 748/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that outsourcing customer care and back-office services to an Indian subsidiary does not, by itself, result in the creation of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against EXL Service.com Inc., upholding the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the US-based entity did not have a fixed place PE, service PE, or agency PE in India.
Case title: VDR Colors And Chemicals Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14291/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because the tax department is unable to place on record proof of dispatch of a personal hearing notice such as entries in a dispatch register, speed post receipts, or email records— it does not automatically follow that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST orders passed in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).
Case title: Clearmedi Healthcare Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19495/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that deposit of 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory for grant of stay, and that the Assessing Officer (AO) must independently exercise discretion under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar relied on National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)Circle 2 (1), Delhi And Ors (2024) where it was held that 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal.
Case title: Manjit Singh Dhaliwal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 01 New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19589/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that ignorance of Indian tax laws doesn't constitute “genuine hardship” to condone delay in filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus rejected the plea of a Canadian citizen seeking such relief on ground of being unaware of Indian tax requirements and facing difficulties due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: M/s McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 5725 of 2022
The Gauhati High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier failed to upload invoice details in Form GSTR-1, and has read down Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act and AGST Act to protect genuine taxpayers.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury disposed of a writ petition filed by the assessee, M/s McLeod Russel India Limited, holding that while the provision itself is not unconstitutional, ITC cannot be denied without giving the purchaser an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transaction through invoices and supporting documents.
Case Title: Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/4700/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled on the basis of a cryptic show cause notice, which merely quotes statutory provisions without disclosing the factual grounds.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted that apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, there are no facts or any details stated in the show cause notice.
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Limited v. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/6430/2025
The Gauhati High Court found that Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017, which restricts input tax credit, runs contrary to the Constitutional framework and the provisions of the CGST Act. Consequently, the bench stayed the operation of the show-cause notices (SCN) issued to Patanjali Foods Limited.
Justice Manish Choudhury was addressing a case in which Patanjali Foods Limited, the assessee, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017.
GST Registration Can Be Restored If Returns And Dues Are Cleared: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Shri Pankaj Mohan Vs. The Union of India &Anr.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 7342 of 2025
The Gauhati High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking restoration of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration which had been cancelled due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.
A single judge bench of Justice Kardak Ete was hearing the petition filed by a proprietor engaged in execution of works contracts, whose GST registration was cancelled by the GST authorities after issuance of a show cause notice alleging continuous default in filing returns.
Case Title: Sameer Malik v. The Union of India
Case Number: Bail Appln./3951/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that even though GST investigations are revenue in nature, arrests made by GST officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Pranjal Das opined that even with regard to arrest by revenue authorities under GST, the procedural compliance under Sections 35/47/48 B.N.S.S. are essential, failing which, the arrest may become bad in law.
Gujarat HC
Case title: SANDHYA MAULIK PATEL v/s ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: C/SCA/ 4162/2023
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.
A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted of Land Broker & Financer Group, Ahmedabad on 15.10.2019, wherein digital data/images from the mobile phone of one Dhaval Teli were acquired, based on which notices under Section 153C of the Act were issued to the petitioners on 13.10.2021.
Case title: GATEWAY EXIM v/s STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS.
Case no.: R/SCA/7183/2025
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
Case no.: C/SCA /2650/2025
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.
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 143 of 2025
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 Justice Pranav Trivedi and Justice A.S. Supehia 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 Name: Infodesk India Private Limited
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 LIMITED v/s THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ANR.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8843 of 2025
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
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19799 of 2023
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.
Case Title: M/S Panchhi Traders Through its Authorized Signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki Vs State of Gujarat Through Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) & Anr.
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 9250 of 2020 and connected matters
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
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.
Case Name: Rajhans Metals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Case No.: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1564 of 2011 & R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1037 of 2008
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.
Case Name: Durga Gopal Shinde Sole Proprietorship vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
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: VIRAT ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED v/s OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , GANDHINAGAR
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5039 of 2024 and connected petitions
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.
The petitioner company had on 09.03.2017 filed its revised return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 declaring its income of Rs. Nil. On 25.06.2018, a search was carried out in case of M/s.World Window Group (searched person). It was the case of the petitioner-Company that it has not undertaken any kind of business or transaction with M/s World Window Group (searched person) more particularly, between the period of F.Y 2012-13 to F.Y. 2018-19. The petitioner-company was issued notice dated 24.06.2022 under Section 153(C) of the IT Act and accordingly, the petitioner-company filed its reply on 22.07.2022.
Case title: THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - KANDLA v/s M/A DEVAM IMPEX
Case no.: R/TAX APPEAL NO.507 of 2025
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".
The respondent- assessee is a transferee of Duty-Free Import Authorisations issued against the export of Assorted Confectionary Products (SION E-1) and Biscuits (SION E-5).
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited v. Union of India & others
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No.6358 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, applying the Supreme Court's Armour Security case, held that once proceedings are initiated by either the State or Central GST authority, parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same issue are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Cause-Title: Kehar Singh Ors vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors, 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the 2017 Rules, ruling that the regulatory framework applies not only to manufacturers but also to brick dealers, rejecting challenges raised by multiple petitioners.
The High Court rejected the plea that GST registration obviated the licensing requirement under the Brick Kiln Act, stating, “GST registration pertains to fiscal compliance… the Brick Kiln Act is a regulatory statute aimed at environmental protection and land use control. Compliance with one statute does not dispense with mandatory requirements of another.”
GST Demand Cannot Exceed Amount Mentioned In Show Cause Notice: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: M/s Ukas Goods Carrier vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case No.: WP (C) No. 1961/2021
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a tax demand under GST cannot exceed the amount mentioned in the show cause notice and that doing so violates basic principles of fairness.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar set aside a GST demand raised against a goods transport agency (GTA), after finding that the final demand was much higher than what was proposed in the original notice.
Case Title: TC Tours Limited v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 809/2024
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once a GST appeal is filed electronically within the statutory period along with the uploaded order, there is no requirement to file a hard copy or certified copy of the order.
Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem stated that the appeal was filed online within statutory period along with the copy of order and therefore, there was no requirement of filing the hard copy of the same. Therefore, its rejection on the ground of not filing of the hard copy, is without any merit. This apart, the appeal cannot be rejected only on these procedural grounds without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/assessee.
Case Tile: J&K Yateem Foundation vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr
Case No.: WP(C) No. 2118/2025 CM No. 5604/2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power to grant stay of an order appealed against even when there is no existing tax demand, and that refusal to consider a stay application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is legally unsustainable.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem was hearing a writ petition filed by J&K Yateem Foundation, a registered charitable society whose registration under Section 12A/12AB of the Income Tax Act had been cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions).
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: Carbon Resources Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(T) No. 3532 of 2025 with W.P(T) No. 3825 of 2025
The High Court of Jharkhand has set aside GST refund rejection orders passed against Carbon Resources Private Limited, holding that the tax department violated mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice while rejecting the refund claim.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing two writ petitions challenging a refund rejection order and a subsequent rectification order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Giridih.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Mr. Yash v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2021 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that the search conducted at Actor Yash's residence makes him a 'searched person' under the Income Tax Act, as documents were seized from him, during the search and a panchanama was drawn. Hence, the order under Section 153C of the Act, which applies to persons other than the one originally searched, is without jurisdiction.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar opined that the actor was searched and in the light of the undisputed fact that his premises was searched and documents seized from him and a panchanama was drawn, the sole/unmistakable conclusion/inference that can be arrived at from the material on record is that the actor was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person as contemplated under Section 153C of the I.T. Act.
GST | Non-Mentioning Vehicle Number In Part-B Of E-Way Bill Is Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court
Case Name: BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 5465 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court in a matter concerning non-uploading of Part-B of E-way Bill, has set aside the revisional order and restored the order of Appellate Authority which allowed release of seized vehicle and imposed a General Penalty of Rs. 25000.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed to refund the entire amount imposed on the Petitioner as penalty excluding Rs. 25000 as also instructed to return the bank guarantee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized on how omission of vehicle number in Part-B of E-way Bill a 'curable effect' and procedural lapses as such would not invalidate the E-way Bill especially when the other documents viz., Invoice etc., tally at the time of interception, inspection and detention.
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 22377 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court held that bona fide errors in GSTR-3B returns are rectifiable and cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the KGST /CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed the department to accept the revised returns, noting that the Supreme Court has also directed the CBIC to re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors.
Case Title: M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6126 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that for the purpose of determining the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the factor is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier.
Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar stated that the assessee had not handed over the goods to the common carrier for the purpose of delivery to the ultimate destination; the liability to pay IGST under Section 10(1)(a) would arise only upon the movement of the goods terminating for delivery to the recipient at various places outside Karnataka. Undisputedly, the supply of goods is inter-State supply and not intra-State supply so as to attract CGST or KGST.
Case Title: M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33081 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act.
The bench opined that a composite notice for multiple financial years enables the Department to blur the statutory distinction between Section 73 (non-fraud, etc.,- 3 year limitation) and Section 74 (fraud etc., - 5 year limitation). If certain years fall under Section 73, but the entire block is treated under Section 74, the authority artificially extends limitation and bypasses mandatory statutory constraints and if such a course is permitted it clearly tantamounts to a colorable exercise of power which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Ruling
Case Number: WP 25497/2024
The Karnataka High Court directed the CBIC to clarify whether passenger transportation services under Uber's subscription model attract GST under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar also directed the CBIC to place the matter before the GST Council, if required, and file a status report.
Case Title: M/s Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 10989 OF 2025
The Karnataka High Court held that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) is not leviable on clinic observation studies for foreign recipients, as such services qualify as export of services with the recipient located outside India.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that having regard to the specific observations made in the 37th GST Council Meeting, whereby it was resolved to clarify the tax liability in GST liability in relation to foreign recipients for R & D services provided by Indian pharmaceutical companies, the impugned notification dated 30.09.2019 is clearly retrospective, being clarificatory and elucidatory in nature.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 81 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a tribunal cannot travel beyond the grounds not cited by the commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that only one reason was highlighted by the Commissioner for exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal having found the said reason as not a valid one, the Tribunal should have stopped there rather than making further observations as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the extension of the benefits under Section 11 of the Act through the assessment order.
Case Title: M/s K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24617 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that the department cannot proceed against a recipient for ITC mismatch without first initiating proceedings against the supplier.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that no proceedings had been initiated against the suppliers before the issuance of notice under Section 73 of the CSGT Act. This amounts to the failure on the part of the department in following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 42.
Case Title: M/s Escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.18245 OF 2008
The Kerala High Court has held that an Ayurvedic Treatment centre is to be classified as a 'hospital' and not 'hotel', and therefore, luxury tax cannot be imposed.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the Ayurvedic Treatment Centre admits patients undergoing prescribed Ayurvedic treatment for a minimum duration, without offering hotel amenities, it qualifies as a hospital and luxury tax is not liable under the Luxury Tax Act.
Case Title: P.P. Paul v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 26259 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that payments made under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) are valid if they fall within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. found that SVLDRS proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and hence covered under Supreme Court's suo moto extension orders.
Case Title: P.T. Vincent v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43431 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that once the plinth area of a building increases due to additional construction, a fresh building tax assessment must be carried out under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., after examining the documents produced by the assessee, stated that the assessee had carried out additional constructions after the initial construction, which was subjected to assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Case Title: M/S National Timbers v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15946 OF 2011
The Kerala High Court has held that a lower conversion factor is applicable for timber imports made before 11.05.2012.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined the issue regarding the refund of additional customs duty paid for the import of timber from Myanmar and other foreign countries.
Case Title: Sri. Shimwas Hussain v. The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33519 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the classification of 'Nata de Coco' is a factual matter that must be decided by the adjudicating authority through statutory proceedings and not by the writ court.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that since it is a statutory proceeding contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, which should be followed from the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act, the question as to be sustainability of the classification cannot be considered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This is because the adjudication of the dispute involved, being a factual aspect, it has to be examined by the competent authorities, and this Court cannot conduct a parallel enquiry in connection with the same.
Case Title: Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27452 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that income derived from public religious/charitable trusts is not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that income derived from properties belonging to the deity or temple does not become the income of the administrative body merely because the body manages the institution. The administrative body must independently establish that the income claimed is its own statutory income in order to attract the exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Interest On Delayed Agricultural Income Tax Not Deductible U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Aspinwall and Company Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.5 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court has held that interest on delayed agricultural income tax is not deductible under Section 37 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the interest paid on account of the delayed payment of Agricultural Income Tax is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Thekkee Cherupillil Sarada v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43816 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an Income Tax Appeal cannot be rejected solely for the assessee's non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that none of the provisions in Section 250 of the Income Tax Act permit the appellate authority to reject the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the assessee/appellant, without going into the merits of the case.
Case Title: M/s T P Trading Company v. The Transport Commissioner (Kerala State)
Case Number: WA NO. 1403 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court upheld the motor vehicle tax demand on a car registered in Puducherry after finding no evidence that it was actually used there.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon noted that the NIL returns do not reflect any business being carried out by the assessee from Puducherry. The bench opined that the onus shifts to the assessee to show that the vehicle was not being used in Kerala to attract tax.
Case Title: James Varghese v. Pala Municipality
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44912 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that under Section 509(11) of the Municipality Act, only the tax component shown in the demand notice is required to be paid for filing an appeal. The bench clarified that the Municipality cannot insist on payment of penal interest or any other additional charges for entertaining the appeal.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that the obligation of the assessee while submitting an appeal is only to make the payment of the tax component in the demand and nothing more. As far as the penal interest and other charges are concerned, the same can be enforced by invoking the appropriate proceedings, subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal.
Case Title: The South Indian Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA NO.64 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that once a bank accepts valid Form 15H declarations from senior citizen depositors under Section 197A(1C) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for non-deductions of TDS (deduct tax at source) on interest income.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the bank (appellant) has to be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct TDS on interest income paid to senior citizens who have furnished declarations in Form 15H.
Case Title: Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. State Of Kerala
Case Number: OTC NO.1 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that expenditure incurred on the upkeep and maintenance of rubber trees, including expenses relating to replantation and replacement, is revenue in nature and therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon were examining the issue regarding the entitlement of the assessee for deduction of the expenditure incurred by it for replantation/ replacement of rubber trees as well as their upkeep with reference to the provisions of the AIT Act, read with the provisions of Rule 7A of the Income Tax Rules,1962.
Case Title: Pazhassi Motors v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 45451 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017), being a non-obstante provision, overrides the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) once returns are filed within the cut-off date specified therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated, Section 16(5) starts with the wording “notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection 4.” This would indicate that, once the taxpayer submits the return within the period stipulated in Section 16(5), the time limit contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST loses its significance.
Case Title: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108 in evidence. When the safeguards under Section 138B have not been complied with, no question of proceeding under the provisions of the statute arises.
Levy Of Service Tax On 'Access To Amusement Facilities' Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 1106 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court held that the levy of service tax on 'access to amusement facilities' is unconstitutional, as the entire activity squarely falls within the State's taxing power under Entry 62 of List II (entertainments and amusements) of the Constitution of India.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act also seek to impose tax on the entire consideration received by the assessee from their clients/customers. The question of the Union imposing tax on the very same transaction in such a scenario would be unconstitutional.
Case Title: M/s Taj Garden Retreat v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2110 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that even though Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) does not prescribe any limitation period, penalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since the notice was issued with reference to the assessment year 2011-12, the period of five years had come to an end on 31.03.2017. The notice was issued admittedly only on 20.12.2018. The above notice is beyond the reasonable period of time of five years, under such circumstances.
Case Title: M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 1745 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court granted relief to Bharti Airtel by holding that SIM cards, recharge coupons, fixed monthly charges and telecom value-added services cannot be treated as 'goods' under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on which any tax can be levied.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian addressed a case filed by Bharti Airtel, the assessee, challenging the assessing order both on grounds of limitation and on merits, seeking to clarify that SIM cards, rechargeable coupons, fixed monthly charges and value-added services (towards SMS, ringtones, download music, etc.) do not constitute 'goods' under the KVAT Act.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Caught In ₹5,000 Land Tax Bribery Trap By Vigilance
Case Title: Jiby Mathew M v. State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 14514 OF 2025
In an alleged bribe demand case of ₹5,000 for effecting mutation of property and payment of land tax, the Kerala High Court has granted bail to the accused after noting that the investigation was practically over and the petitioner had been in custody for more than 25 days.
The order was passed by Justice Muralee Krishna S. while allowing a bail application filed by the sole accused in Crime No. VC.22/2025 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Detail: Amara Raja Batteries Limited vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a matter where Invoices and Consignment Note mentioned the correct destination address, but E-way Bill mentioned another address, has dismissed the writ petition.
In a recent order, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal emphasized on how during transportation of the goods 'no steps' were taken to correct the mistake in E-way Bill. This indicated mens rea, the High Court opined.
Madras HC
Case Title: Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016
The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for IPLC services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of a payment made to a foreign-based company.
Case Title: M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TCA Nos. 319 of 2016 and 538 of 2021
The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate issues or modify its original order under the guise of rectification.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope and ambit of rectification/review could be only within the contours provided under the provision. When the provision only allows for rectification for any errors apparent on the face of the record, the mistake should be discernible on the face of the record without requiring any elaborate enquiry or reasoning. In the garb of rectification, the issue cannot be re-adjudicated, and a fresh order cannot be passed effacing the original order, which is clearly impermissible.
Case Name: MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI
The Madras High Court has quashed Show Cause Notices issued to Apollo Tyres Limited and MRF Limited alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the composite supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (TFF) since tax difference was paid voluntarily.
In twin judgments dated November 28,2025, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy examined if Show Cause Notice had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 74 to hold that payment deferred due to confusion prevailing confusion in the industry regarding tax treatment of TFF is not attributable to tax evasion.
Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No. 394 of 2012
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate
Case Number: W.P.Nos.23014 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that the notices under Section 153C are unsustainable where a search for 'other person' was initiated after 01.04.2021.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such a case, the date of initiation of search for the assessee is the date on which the documents were handed over to the JAO of the assessee, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the assessee.
Case Title: The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: T.C.A.No.285 of 2021
The Madras High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee under a government rehabilitation scheme is a capital receipt and is not taxable as revenue.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan examined whether the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee from the Government under the rehabilitation scheme should be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee or as a capital receipt, taking it out of the purview of the taxable income.
Case Title: K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P. No. 24029 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that once the assessee's entitlement to compounding had attained finality through earlier orders, then the Income Tax Department could not apply the revised Compounding Guidelines.
Justice C. Saravanan referred to the Explanation to Section 279(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and noted that the new compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V) would apply, only if a new application is/was filed in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the said guidelines.
Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust Vs. The Union of India & Anr
Case No.: WP(MD) No. 29610 of 2025
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a trust already recognised as a charitable organisation under the Income Tax Act cannot be ignored as such while considering its application under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan was dealing with a writ petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust challenging the rejection of its FCRA registration by the Ministry of Home Affairs . The Bench stated that when according to the Income Tax Department, the petitioner is a charitable organization, it cannot cease to be one under FCRA regime. That is the true import of Section 52 of the Act. The certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under Section 12A of the I.T Act is definitely a relevant material and failure to consider the same indicates non-application of mind.
Orissa HC
Case Detail: M/s. ESL Steel Limited v. Union of India & others
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.34653 of 2025
The Orissa High Court on Thursday, in a plea by ESL Steel concerning the levy of GST on assignment of right to use natural resources as well as statutory charged paid on stamp duty, registration fees, payments for Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF), etc, has granted interim stay against GST demand of INR 512 Crores (plus interest and penalty).
The Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman were hearing the writ petition filed by ESL Steel whereby Advocates Bharat Raichandanit along with Advocates Sudipta Bhattacharjee, Onkar Sharma, Rishabh Prasad and Shrestha Khatri (from Khaitan & Co.) assailed the legality of the notice since the same was a consolidated one, bunching multiple financial years into single demand notice. They urged the Bench to consider that the notice had consolidated multiple financial years and was self‑contradictory. Thus, referring to its own decision in Vedanta Limited on bunching of notices, the Orissa High Court prima facie found grounds to grant an interim stay.
Case Title: Abhijit Nayak v. The Commissioner of (CT & GST), Odisha and others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.32643 of 2025
The Orissa High Court held that while a writ petition may be entertained when the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is not constituted or functional, such non-availability cannot be used to bypass the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman stated that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 23907 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, holding that the availability and operationalisation of the statutory appellate remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Acts for the period April 2020 to March 2021, which was affirmed by the first appellate authority. The principal contention was that although a second appeal lay under Section 112 of the GST Act, the GSTAT had not been constituted earlier, rendering the petitioner without remedy.
Case Detail: Subrat Rout vs. The Commissioner of (C.T. & G.S.T.), Odisha and others
The Orissa High Court in a matter involving 'mistaken identity' where one individual was assessed despite having a cancelled registration number (GSTIN), has quashed Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted the 'mistaken fact' in Section 73 adjudication proceedings. It was clarified that Section 73 was invoked on the premise there was an alleged mismatch in figures disclosed by 'Subrat Rout' instead of a 'Subrat Kumar Rout' in the returns vis-à-vis receipt of amount towards works contract, pertaining to the tax period December 2018.
Case Title: M/s. Simon India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 33058 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has held that a GST interest and penalty waiver application filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected merely because a portion of tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) was initially discharged through input tax credit, subsequently pays the amount in cash and complies with legal requirements.
A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman heard the writ petition filed by Simon India Ltd., a company engaged in execution of works contracts, challenging the rejection of its application seeking waiver of interest and penalty in relation to GST demands raised for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
Case Name: Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise & Ors.
The Orissa High Court in a matter concerning, Double Jeopardy on Refund of about Rs. 14 crores where recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 73 for Refund already sanctioned by the Appellate Authority, has quashed the Show Cause Notice for recovery.
In a recent judgment, the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, observed that by initiating recovery the Joint Commissioner sought to revive a Review Order differing with the findings of the Appellate Authority. It thus 'overstepped' its jurisdiction and so the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice could not override a quasi-judicial decision of the Appellate Authority.
Case Title: M/s. Ayushi Galvano v. Commissioner (Audit), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Audit Commissionerate and others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.30871 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has stayed further proceedings arising from a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand-cum-show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after finding a prima facie jurisdictional defect in the audit process that formed the basis of the demand.
The interim order was passed in a writ petition which challenged an audit notice and a consequential demand-cum-show cause. The demand was issued following an audit report communicated during audit proceedings conducted under Section 65 of the GST Act.
Patna HC
Case title: M/S ACC Limited v. State of Bihar
Case no.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2023
In a ruling on sales tax valuation under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the Patna High Court has held that packing materials used for cement, such as gunny bags and HDPE bags, form an integral part of cement sales and cannot be subjected to separate tax rates distinct from the cement itself.
The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman dismissed a batch of miscellaneous appeals filed by ACC Limited. The appeals pertained to multiple assessment years ranging from 1996-97 to 2000-01.
Case Title: Rajnandani Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 2023
The Patna High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in restoring an addition of ₹1.91 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after reversing a reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), where the assessee had produced documentary evidence and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not disclose any adverse material.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman held that the Tribunal interfered with the appellate order without demonstrating perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard, and in doing so, effectively placed a burden on the assessee beyond what is contemplated under Section 68 of the Act.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Arun Garg v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRM-M-25342-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even in cases involving economic offences under the CGST Act, courts must not proceed on the presumption that “Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception”.
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney stated that even in cases involving economic offences, the Court seized of the matter has to go through the gravity of the offence, the object of the Act, the attending circumstances, etc. Thus, economic offences cannot be categorised in one group, and the Court should not proceed on the presumption that “Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception”.
Case title: Bhupinder Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh and others
Case no.: CWP-29843-2025
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of income tax assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Panaji, Goa, holding that the Revenue authorities acted within their powers under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the transfer was justified in public interest to facilitate coordinated investigation.
Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "absence of allegations of mala fide on the respondent's part the transfer of the petitioner's assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Goa has been exercised by the revenue for its administrative convenience; to facilitate effective investigation and coordinated assessment; for efficient collection of tax and in public interest. Prior thereto, principles of natural justice were duly followed and that the transfer order also contains adequate and acceptable reasons."
Case Title: M/s Himalaya Optical Centre Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Punjab
Case Number: VATAP-38-2013 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the sunglasses are classified as a residuary item, as they did not fall under any specified Schedule, and therefore are exigible to VAT (Value Added Tax) at the rate of 12.50%.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta stated that sunglasses are indeed a distinct commodity, which is not covered under Entry 110 of Schedule B of PVAT Act and Entry 100-E Schedule-C of HVAT Act.
Case Title: M/s Garg Furnance Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: CWP-31754-2025
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that tax authorities cannot block a taxpayer's Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) beyond the Input Tax Credit (ITC) actually available at the time of action, and that creating a negative ITC balance under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 is without jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Garg Furnace Limited, which challenged the blocking of its ECL on 01.10.2025 resulting in a negative ITC balance, allegedly without notice and in violation of Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Bhupinder Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh and others
Case Number: CWP-29843-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the transfer of assessment jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act is valid where cases are inter-linked, and centralisation is required for effective investigation and public interest.
Justices Deepaksibal and Lapita Banerji stated that in the absence of allegations of mala fide on the department's part, the transfer of the assessee's assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Goa has been exercised by the revenue for its administrative convenience; to facilitate effective investigation and coordinated assessment; for efficient collection of tax and in public interest. Prior thereto, principles of natural justice were duly followed and that the transfer order also contains adequate and acceptable reasons.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Manoj Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13655/2025
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of the applicants accused of facilitating large-scale GST evasion through online gaming transactions.
Justice Sameer Jain stated that bail should normally be granted for offences under section 132 of the CGST Act, unless extraordinary circumstances exist, and in the matter at hand, there is GST evasion of approximately Rs. 95 Crores, which shall have writ large effects on the economy of the country.
Case Detail: Akash Construction vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court, in a matter concerning effective service of appellate order and consideration of condonation of delay application, has set aside order passed by the Appellate Authority.
In a recent judgment a Division Bench comprising, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit on dismissal of appeal on account of limitation, emphasized that condonation of delay application must be judiciously considered. The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition while upholding the legal principle of deemed service through the GST portal as a valid communication.
Sikkim HC
Case Title: Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2) Gangtok
Case No.: Tax App. No. 02 of 2025
The Sikkim High Court has held that a non-bank co-operative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest income earned from investments made with co-operative banks, and that Section 80P(4) does not bar such deduction.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai allowed the tax appeal filed by the Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (SIMFED) and set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, which had denied the benefit.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Atlanta Tele Cables vs The Deputy Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition (M/B) No.991 of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order passed against an assessee after the department ignored his request for adjournment on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time.
The petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, contending that the adjudicating authority proceeded in absence of petitioner despite being duly informed that he was outside India and unable to participate in the hearing or produce records.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur v. Rajan Rajesh Kumar
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 12 OF 2024
The Uttarakhand High Court held that once a proposal for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is rejected by the competent authority, repeated representations of the same proposal are impermissible and without jurisdiction.
Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay examined whether the multiple presentations / repeated re-presentation of the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 to the Competent Authority under Section 151, is permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 20476 of 2018
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bunker supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel to 'cable ship ASEAN explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT).
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel 'Cable Ship ASEAN Explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT), or whether such supplies are liable to Central Excise duty as the vessel cannot be considered as a 'foreign-going vessel' under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Detail: Indian Tobacco Traders vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax Guntur - GST
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 30390 of 2018
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on Indian Tobacco Traders under the heading Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service, as tobacco leaves were transported through individual truck owners.
In an order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) clarified that even if a person had provided Goods Transport Service but has not issued the consignment note, Service Tax from that person cannot be recovered under the category of GTA. The CESTAT rejected the contention of the Service Tax Department that consignment notes may be, in any form like chit, bill even weighing slip given to the truck owner may be treated as consignment note.
No Service Tax On Cost Allocation For Pet-Care Products Of Mars International: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title: M/s Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Tax, Hyderabad - II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 22990 of 2014
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mars International is not liable to service tax on cost allocations for developing pet-care products. The bench further opined that the arrangement with the group companies did not involve a service provider-service recipient relationship, and therefore, the service is not taxable.
ANGAD PRASAD (Judicial Member) and A.K. JYOTISHI (Technical Member) found that the Mars International/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of pet care products or acquires products from co-manufacture. The companies under the agreement are group companies; these companies are doing research for developing the pet care products in-house. Therefore, the services are not taxable under Section 65 (105) (za) of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s Omaxe Buildhome Limited vs. Commissioner of GST Delhi-East
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 50776 of 2018
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeal against the order of Commissioner(appeals) filed by the assessee M/s Omaxe Buildhome Ltd., by stating that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because the appellant had supressed the material facts and had contravened to provsions of the Finance Act. Thereby, setting aside the demand of service tax raised on car parking charges.
Case Title: BILT Graphics Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85636 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and later discharged at Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” for the purpose of including it in the transaction value for levy of Central Excise duty.
A Division Bench of C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the demand raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with equal penalty under Section 11AC.
Case Title: Rajni Arvind Birla v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No. 930/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an assessment order passed without awaiting the DVD (Departmental Valuation Officer) report violates Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) opined that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B, without awaiting the DVO's report, when such a report was statutorily awaited, is not sustainable.
24K Oval Pendants Qualify As Gold Jewellery, Eligible For Duty Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Detail: R.K. Digital Solutions vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 30206 of 2024
The Hyderabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a matter concerning import of oval shaped gold pendants, has favoured classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7113 1910 as 'articles of jewellery' instead of CTH 7108 1300 as 'semi-manufactured gold'
In a recent order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), examined the two competing tariff headings CTH 7108 (unwrought/semi-manufactured gold) and CTH 7113 (articles of jewellery). The CESTAT going by the General Rules of Interpretation held that oval shaped pendants with hook could be worn on the body as pendant and thus, qualified as “articles of jewellery”.
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta vs. Income Tax Officer
Case No: ITA No. 4199/MUM/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has set aside a ₹10.84 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of actress Preity G. Zinta, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
A Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), while hearing the appeal of Preity G. Zinta against an addition under Section 68, observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the documents proving the genuineness of loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
Case Detail: Sri Ram Jari Industries
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of imitation zari thread or yarn made from metallised polyester or plastic film, widely used in sarees or garments in place of real gold or silver zari thread would attract GST at 5%.
In a ruling dated November 29, 2025 Gujarat AAR comprising Shri. Vishal Malani (Memmer- Central Tax) and Smt. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) perused the decision of the 52nd GST Council Meeting regarding imitation zari thread or yarn made from metallised polyester film /plastic film, relevant tariff entry HSN 5605, Sl. No. 218AA inserted vide Notification No. 09/2023 dated July 26, 2023. Therefore, the Members concluded that metallic zari thread or yarn made from metallized polyester/plastic film would merit classification under HSN 56050020 attracting 5% GST, aligning with GST Council clarifications and notifications.
No Input-Tax Credit On IGST Paid Through Pre-Consultation Letter Or TR-6 Challan: Gujarat AAR
Case Detail: Hansaben Jayantibhai Patel
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 27,14,559 paid towards differential IGST demand for mold-cleaning machine import from China through pre‑consultation letter/TR‑6 challan.
In a ruling dated November 24, 2025 Gujarat AAR comprising Shri. Vishal Malani (Memmer- Central Tax) and Smt. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) ruled on twin aspects relating to eligibility to avail ITC on the basis of pre-consultation letter and limitation in terms of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The AAR held that payment of differential duty online through the E-payment option on the basis of Pre-consultation letter issued prior to a Show Cause Notice or TR-6 challan would not constitute as documents evidencing payment of tax under the Customs and hence were not valid duty‑paying documents.
Case Title: M/s. Kalmar India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal Nos. 40368 to 40370 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that delay by the refund authority in sanctioning a refund claim is 'sufficient cause' for excluding limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that ……The practical incapacity of the Refund-Sanctioning Officer to render an effective, reasoned decision within a reasonable time rendered that remedy ineffectual for timely redress. The prolonged inaction on the part of the Department constitutes a “sufficient cause” for excluding the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Non-Monetary Benefits From Manufacturer “Promotional” In Nature, Taxable Under GST: Tamil Nadu AAR
Advance Ruling No.: 46/ARA/2025
The Tamil Nadu Bench of Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), comprising C. Thiyagarajan (CGST Member) and B. Suseel Kumar (SGST Member), has held that non-monetary benefits such as gifts, perquisites, and tour packages received by a dealer from a manufacturer amount to consideration for “support services” and are exigible to Goods and Services Tax (GST).
A wholesale and retail paint dealer, approached the AAR seeking clarity on the GST implications of non-monetary benefits provided by paint manufacturers. The benefits ranging from free gifts to foreign tour packages for both the distributor and its painter-customers were subjected to 10% TDS under Section 194R of the Income Tax Act, and the applicant had raised tax invoices treating these benefits as supply.
Case Title: Paul Foskey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-V
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85569 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entity Marriott Hong Kong qualify as export of services, and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench of Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban allowed three connected appeals filed by Marriott India, and set aside the entire service tax demand, penalties, and interest confirmed by the Commissioner through Order-in-Original.
Paddy Is An Agricultural Produce, No GST Leviable On Rent Received For Its Storage: Tamil Nadu AAR
The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that rent received for letting out a godown to store paddy does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST), as paddy qualifies as an agricultural produce.
The ruling was passed on an advance ruling application filed by M/s Lena Modern Rice Mill, owned by Lakshmanan Sivalingam, which had rented out its premises for use as a godown to store paddy. The tenant had refused to pay GST on the rent, prompting the applicant to seek clarity on whether GST was payable on such rental income.
Case Title: M/s. Zuari Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise
Case Number: Central Excise Appeal No. 20591 of 2022
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that manufacturing and packaging of cement are works service contracts, not civil construction activities, and therefore CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit cannot be denied.
Regarding the allegation of ineligible CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on lease premium, the bench consists of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) found that since the disputed services were ultimately meant for accomplishing the objective of providing the output service, it cannot be said that since the phrase 'setting up' was specifically excluded in the inclusive part of definition of input service, the benefit of CENVAT credit should be denied.
Case Title: M/s Chauhan Enterprises v. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70427 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services, such as meter reading, billing, and connection/disconnection of electricity, are ancillary services of transmission and distribution of electricity and service tax is not payable for these services.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) examined whether the services such as meter reading, collection of revenue, connection and disconnection of electricity supply would be covered under the scope of transmission and distribution of electricity as specified under Section 66D of the Negative List of Services of Finance Act, 1994.
Service Tax Cannot Be Levied On Rent-A-Cab Services Provided To SEZ Units: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. PRR Travels v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42331 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax cannot be levied on rent-a-cab services provided to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units as per the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act (The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the SEZ Act is a self-contained Act which provides exemptions on taxes, duties, cess, drawbacks and concessions on imports and exports of goods and on supply of services to the Developers and Units within a SEZ for carrying on authorised operations. Therefore, in terms of sections 51 and 26 of the SEZ Act, no notification is required to be issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, in this regard.
Case Title: M/s. Deccan Construction Company v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40931 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the construction of school and college buildings during 2008-2012 is not taxable as commercial or industrial construction service.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the construction of buildings for educational institutions, such as schools and colleges, during 2008–2012, is taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and whether educational institutions charging fees can be considered “commercial” for purposes of Section 65(25b).
Case Title: Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85519 of 2016
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and subsequently discharged by payment of its Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” so as to be added back to the transaction value for levy of central excise duty.
A Division Bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd. and set aside the demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty confirmed under Sections 11A, 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title: M/s Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that reassessment of Bills of Entry cannot be sought at a belated stage after clearance of goods merely to claim refund on the basis of a favourable Supreme Court judgment delivered in another assessee's case.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Minerva Enterprises and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, which had refused reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry cleared in 2015, stating that Both the provisions would go to indicate that after clearance of goods neither reassessment nor amendment of the Bills of Entry could be done in the normal circumstances, unless the exceptions noted above, which is admittedly found absent in the Appellant's case, apart from the fact that the sole purpose for reassessment was to enable the Appellant to get refund as a consequence of judgment passed in another case i.e. in SRF Limited, cited supra. Such a refund is hit by the principle laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India.
Case Detail: Hasti Petro Chemical & Shipping Limited
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that GST at 5% was applicable for transportation of empty containers by rail, but without Input Tax Credit (ITC) and same would be covered by general entry (i) at Serial No. 09 viz. Transport of goods by rail (other than services specified at item no. (iv)).
The Gujarat AAR comprising Mr. Vishal Malani (Member- Central Tax) and Ms. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) examined the two competing entries (i) and (iv) at Serial No. 9 of Rate Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) noted that there is not specific entry for transportation service of empty containers. Thus, the Gujarat AAR held that since there is no specific entry for transportation of empty containers then it would be covered by the general entry (i) at Serial No. 09 of Rate Notification.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42213 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere paper trail or endorsed bills of entry without actual movement of goods is not enough to claim CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that mere creation of paperwork or paper trail to indicate movement of goods, or mere endorsement of Bills of Entry, is not sufficient to establish eligibility for credit. The essential conditions required for availing credit have therefore not been fulfilled.
Service Tax Not Payable On Royalty Received For Group Companies' Use Of Copyrighted Logo: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40635 and 40636 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable on royalty received for group companies' use of the copyrighted 'TTK' Logo founded by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. (assessee).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) examined whether the demand of service for the 'TTK' logo of the assessee used by its group companies under Intellectual Property Rights service is tenable.
Zinc EDTA Is Fertiliser, Not A Chemical; Lower Customs Duty Applicable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Coromandel International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40440 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Zinc EDTA is classifiable as a fertiliser under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 3105 9090, and not a chemical salt under CTI 29224990 as stated by the revenue.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) noted that Zinc EDTA contains Nitrogen, which is an essential fertilising element.
Case Title: NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research v. Commissioner of Central Excise, GST, Rohtak
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 60680 of 2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has held that revenue-sharing arrangements between a hospital and diagnostic service providers (DSPs) do not amount to provision of “Business Support Service” (BSS) under the Finance Act, 1994, and are therefore not liable to service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research, setting aside the service tax demand confirmed against the hospital for the period 2008–09 to 2013–14 . The Bench stated that mere providing of a building along with some basic amenities like electricity, water, sewage etc. cannot be qualified as 'support service' for running a business. These facilities are provided to enable the diagnostic service providers to render services as an integral part of healthcare services.
Case Title: Hareshkumar Mafatlal Shah v. ACIT, Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 5439/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai has held that long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the sale of listed shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of general allegations of penny-stock manipulation, when the assessee has supported the transactions with complete documentary evidence.
A Division Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the additions of ₹2.41 crore made towards alleged bogus LTCG and ₹9.66 lakh towards estimated commission under Sections 68(Unexplained Credit Cash) and 69C(Unexplained Expenditure) of the Act.
Case Title: M/s. Aravindh Eye Hospital v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42460 of 2014
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that staff reimbursement, training, and hospital management in a joint venture are not taxable under the service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that the receipts characterised as “royalty”/“management fee” are integrally connected with the provision of healthcare services and do not constitute a separate taxable Management or Business Consultancy Service. The payments are in substance revenue sharing for collaborative clinical management, and there is no element of service among the joint venture partners.
Case Title: M/s. Narru Guru Shantha Siva Kamal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76453 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the foreign markings available on the gold biscuits are not sufficient to establish the smuggled nature of the gold.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the gold recovered from the assessee was neither established to be of foreign origin nor established to be smuggled in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the gold recovered from the assessee is not liable for confiscation.
Case Title: Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Cochin
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 20886 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has held that no Service Tax liability can be applied under the reverse charge mechanism on an Indian branch where the software maintenance services were contracted, received and consumed entirely outside India. The Tribunal further held that payments made towards hotel expenses of guests cannot be treated as taxable “Sponsorship Services”.
A Division Bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the Service Tax demand along with penalties confirmed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Dange Enterprise
Case No.: NAPA/16/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Anti Profiteering Division at Delhi has held that Franchisee of Subway Systems profiteered in respect of restaurant services by increasing base price of the products to offset loss of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
In an order dated December 02, 2025 the Single Bench of Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra (President) has accepted the second report submitted by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) in respect of profiteering allegation to the tune of Rs. 4,57,683 against Respondent, a franchisee of M/s Subway Systems India.
Case Detail: Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs. Commissioner Central Tax
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on the activity of investing in Mutual Funds as such activities undertaken by Godfrey Phillips India Limited (Appellant) would be different from 'trading in securities' and cannot be considered as an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act.
In an order dated December 05, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Shri. P..V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds cannot be said to be an activity of sale and purchase of the securities and therefore, not an activity relating to trading and securities.
Case Title: Shri Srimanta Rakshit v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75674 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that separate proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible once CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018) proceedings are initiated.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that once separate proceedings have been initiated against the assessee under CBLR, 2018, for violation of the provisions of the said Regulations, no separate penalty is warranted on the assessee under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as no offence under the Customs Act, 1962, has been established against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s Eagle International v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75332 of 2023
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Customs cannot directly rely on NIDB (National Import Database) data to enhance import value.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the adjudicating authority straightaway has re-determined the value on the basis of NIDB data retrieved, indicating the Bill of Entry and the description of the goods, which is legally not maintainable.
PVC Raincoats Classified As Plastic Articles And Not Textile Apparel, Attract 18% GST: Gujarat AAR
Advance Ruling No.: GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/51
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that PVC raincoats are to be treated as plastic articles and not textile apparel, and therefore attract 18% GST.
The ruling came on an application filed by a Gujarat-based manufacturer of PVC and plastic raincoats. The applicant had sought clarity on whether PVC raincoats should be taxed at 5% as apparel or at 18% as articles of plastic.
Case Title: M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 51371 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence, holding that mis-declaration of goods by the exporter, by itself, does not establish violation of obligations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
A Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member – Technical) allowed the appeal filed by the assesse, M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the order of the Commissioner of Customs revoking the broker's licence, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty.
Refund Cannot Be Denied When CA Certificate & Ledger Confirms Excess Excise Duty: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77195 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of excess excise duty since both the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the ledger clearly established that the duty was paid in excess and was never passed on to any third party.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the assessee has filed a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, which certifies that excise duty has not been passed on to any third party and was also shown as receivable from the Government of India.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Limited v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77011 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that railway receipts and STTG (Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods) Certificates are valid documents for taking CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit even prior to 27.08.2014.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the STTG Certificates issued by the Railways have been prescribed as a document for availing credit with effect from 27.08.2014. However, railway receipts, which contain all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, continue to be a relevant document for the availment of credit prior to and after 27.08.2014 also.
Case Title: M/s. Jennex Granite Industries v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41068 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the term 'prohibition' includes both complete and partial restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy. Hence, restricted goods imported without fulfilling mandatory conditions are treated as prohibited, which attracts confiscation and a penalty.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member) noted that once the goods are restricted, either subject to any conditions or otherwise, they become prohibited goods if the condition is not complied with.
Import Of Technical Designs Not 'Design Service'; No Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-III
Appeal Nos.: ST/87589/2013 & ST/87590/2013
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has delivered a significant ruling holding that import of technical know-how, engineering drawings and designs transferred permanently for manufacturing in India cannot be taxed as “Design Services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) set aside the entire Service Tax demand of ₹21.79 crore, along with interest and penalties, confirming that the transaction was an outright purchase of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and not a taxable service.
Case Title: M/s. Terai Overseas Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76508 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knitted ready-made garments, such as Gents' shirts, Ladies' dresses, and coats, are classifiable under CTH 6102; hence, the exporters are entitled to a 10% drawback rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that from the descriptions of the goods as contained in the concerned shipping bills, it can be observed that the said goods, mostly including 'Gents shirts', 'Ladies dress', 'Ladies long coat', 'Ladies blouse', etc., are in the nature of knitted readymade garments, which squarely fall under the CTH 6102 as mentioned in the Public Notice No. 5/1995, which deals with 'ready-made garments'. Under the said entry pertaining to CTH 6102, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
Case Title: Paramount Dyes and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85305 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that commission received in India for facilitating sales of goods for foreign suppliers amounts to “export of service” and cannot be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the Service Tax demand, interest, and penalties relating to the period 2004–2009.
Case Title: SMV Beverages Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 86054 of 2015
In a significant relief to SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that incentives received from Pepsi Foods for advertising and promotional activities cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The Tribunal followed a Larger Bench ruling which categorically held that section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), while allowing the appeal, of the assessee stated that the appellant was promoting the trademark/brand name of Pepsi Foods, but section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client. It cannot, therefore, be urged that BAS was provided by the appellant to Pepsi Foods.
Case Title: Shri Surendra Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.70033 of 2024
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that goods cannot be confiscated merely on the basis of a local market survey or opinion in the absence of proof of smuggling. The Tribunal observed that the burden to prove that the goods are smuggled lies on the department.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that the Department has not discharged its burden. Since betel nuts are also produced in India. In the absence of any evidence that confiscated goods were illegally smuggled into India, the same cannot be confiscated merely based on local market survey/opinion.
Case Title: M/s Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Meerut-I
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.70294 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that storing finished goods outside the factory premises due to space constraints is connected with the assessee's business operation. Therefore, CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit on 'warehousing services' is admissible as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and cannot be denied.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that how a business has to be run cannot be dictated by the officers of the Department, and it should be left to the prerogative and wisdom of the business enterprises to address their business exigencies in the best possible manner, and the options available to them.
Case Title: J Uthaman v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40567 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed unless the department proves mens rea and a clear act of abetment with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that Section 114 has a penal character of being a penalty in personam, placing the burden squarely on the Customs Department to establish the guilt.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions Based On HSBC Geneva 'Base Note' Against Anil Ambani
Case Title: DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani
Case No.: ITA No. 6228/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6229/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6230/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6231/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6232/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6233/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against businessman Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, holding that additions made on the basis of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva were unsustainable in law.
A Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted both substantive and protective additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2001–02 to 2006–07.
Case Detail: Jparks India Private Limited
The Mumbai, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) has clarified that there's no concept of third-party invoicing or third-country invoicing or third-country trade under the Rules for Determination of Country-Of-Origin under the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) for imports of electronic or non-electronic toy-parts from China when Swiss supplier invoices Jparks India.
In a ruling dated December 11, 2025 Shri. Prabhat K. Rameshwaram rejected Applicant's reliance placed on Circular no. 53/2020 dated December 08, 2020 to impress that third party invoicing is generally allowed. The CAAR clarified that the aforesaid Circular endorsed acceptance of a third party invoicing 'exclusively' for the Duty-Free Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries, only in case of wholly obtained goods.
Case Title: M/s. Face IT Systems LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.76501 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Face Recognition Access Control Systems perform data processing functions, such as data storage, read-write memory operations and automated processing, and therefore qualify as an Automatic Data Processing Machine under CTH 8471. The bench clarified that these systems are eligible for NIL customs duty exemption.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the Access Controller Face Recognition System has read and write memory, has 4 GB RAM, 64 GB nano flash, is capable of processing program, can read from camera, card and QR code and there is embedded Linux Operating System. It is capable for automatic face detection even with mask. The configuration and functions show that there cannot be any doubt that the device has all the functions qualifying to be classified as Automatic Data Processing Machine.
Customs | Import Duty Must Be Determined At Time Of Import, Not On Later Sale Price: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41046 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs duty is required to be assessed on the transaction value declared at the time of import, as reflected in the supplier's invoice. Any subsequent sale or higher remittance made after the import cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the addition under the guise of short-payment of duty, which related to the actual remittances made by the assessee/HDFC Bank to its foreign suppliers as compared to the declared/transaction value at the time of import, is justified or not.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42458 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on membership and participation fees paid to foreign associations such as International Packaging Group (IPG) or International Packaging Forum Network (IPFN) for the period prior to 01.07.2012.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri (Technical Member) stated that the demand for the period prior to 1.7.2012 on IPG/IFPN is unsustainable as there was no evidence that these bodies are mere association of persons and not imported neither have rendered any services to the appellant and the condition of relationship of service recipient with the service provider is absent.
Income Tax Act | GST Would Not Form Part Of Gross Receipts Under Section 44BB: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title: Oceaneering International GmbH v. DCIT (International Taxation)
Case No.: ITA No. 6705/Mum/2025 | AY 2023–24
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected by a non-resident assessee cannot be included in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Oceaneering International GmbH for Assessment Year 2023–24 and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude GST while computing income on a presumptive basis.
Service Tax | Tax Paid Under Wrong Service Category Cannot Be Demanded Again: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 85614 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand raised against the assesse, holding that once service tax has already been paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, merely under a wrong service category, the department cannot demand the same tax again.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), granting consequential relief to the assessee.
Case Detail: Summit Hotels & Resorts Private Limited
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of restaurant services, including the supply of aerated beverages, would be taxable at the rate of 18% GST.
In a ruling by Shri. Shafeeq S (Member- Central Tax) and Shri. Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti (Member-State Tax) examined the two kinds of supply of Aerated Drinks viz. (i) With food (shown separately in bill and (ii) Individually (only aerated water). The West Bengal AAR considering the 'factual matrix' observed that supply of aerated beverages with restaurant service to be consumed at the premises itself was to be treated as a 'composite' one and not an individual supply. To illustrate, the West Bengal AAR noted that there was no over-the-counter sale of sealed bottles/cans and hence the Applicant was supplying Carbonated Drinks with food which constitutes as 'composite supply of service'.
Case Title: Shri Dharanidhar Ghosh v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75242 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a mere allegation by a co-accused that the assessee handed over gold cannot serve as the sole basis for imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The bench clarified that in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence supporting this claim, the statement of the co-accused is not sufficient to implicate the assessee in the said offence.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that in the absence of any independent corroboration, such an exculpatory statement of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis for implicating the assessee in the alleged offence and imposition of penalty on him.
Income Tax | ITAT Mumbai Allows Section 80P Deduction On Interest Earned From Co-operative Banks
Case Title: Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. ITO Ward-1(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6376/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a co-operative housing society to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act on interest income earned from deposits placed with co-operative banks.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and set aside the denial of deduction by the tax authorities for Assessment Year 2021–22.
Case Title: M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Air)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40959 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that merely sending imported goods to a job worker for manufacture does not violative exemption conditions. Since there was no allegation of the sale of goods, the exemption of benefit under Notification No. 73/2006-Cus dated 10.07.2006 cannot be denied to Godrej.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order alleged that the assessee had sold the imported goods to the job worker. In the absence of any such allegation, merely dispatching the goods to a job worker for manufacture cannot be a ground to deny the exemption benefit.
Case Title: M/s. WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 42318 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not submitted in a prescribed or revised format.
The bench opined that the format prescribed under the public notice is only indicative, and once the assessee has produced documents evidencing payment of VAT/CST, the refund cannot be denied merely due to a technical lapse in the format of the Chartered Accountant certificate.
Case Name: Shubhabrata Chowdhury
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of unskilled labour for special cleanliness drive for cleaning Ganga ghats would qualify as 'Pure Service'.
In a ruling by Shri. Shafeeq S (Member- Central Tax) and Shri. Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti (Member-State Tax) it was observed that operation and maintenance services to various Corporations and Municipalities who were 'Local Authorities'.
Case Name: Sett Dey And Co Homoeo Lab
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that homeopathic medicines having a single, two or more components formulated exclusively in alignment with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, irrespective of retail sale, attracted 5% GST.
In a ruling by Shri. Shafeeq S (Member- Central Tax) and Shri. Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti (Member-State Tax) from the two Tariff Entries 3003 and 3004 inferred that medicines manufactured by the Applicant consisted of two or more constituents mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses.
Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.79423 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that seizure of goods cannot be sustained merely on the assumption that they were intended for export through non-specified routes. In the absence of any corroborative evidence establishing intent to export illegally, such presumption alone is insufficient to justify such seizure.
Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) opined that the mere presumption that the goods were meant for export to Nepal through other than the specified routes cannot be a valid reason to uphold the seizure in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to the said effect.
Case Detail: Ashutosh Metal Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) confirmed demand of service tax on commission earned on account of sale of agricultural produce, Indian Raw Cotton under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
The CESTAT upheld order by the lower authority fastening service tax liability of ₹71.75 lakhs and ₹90.56 lakhs for the periods 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
Case Title: M/S KEC International
Case No.: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹18.95 crore raised against the assessee, KEC International, holding that the Department wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation without establishing any intent to evade tax .
A Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Mr. P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and quashed the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula. solely on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under Section 73 cannot be invoked without proven mens rea deliberate fraud, suppression with evasion intent, or willful misstatement as mandated by Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals (1995) 78 ELT 401 (SC).
Case Title: M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50848 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the cancellation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that the broker helped export prohibited goods by filing documents in the name of a firm that had never hired it.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member–Technical) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
Customs Act | No Time Bar For Shipping Bill Conversion Under Section 149: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Commissioner of customs, Nhava Sheva-II Vs. ADF Foods Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87408 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against ADF Foods Ltd., holding that exporters can seek conversion of shipping bills from one export incentive scheme to another even after several years, as long as the law does not prescribe any time limit.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) upheld the earlier relief granted to the exporter and confirmed that the Revenue could not reopen the issue once it had already been settled by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 86159 of 2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a penalty imposed on a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), holding that merely claiming an exemption or classification as per the importer's instructions does not amount to misdeclaration or misconduct.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., a Customs Broker, and quashed the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act stating that Customs Brokers cannot be punished for bona fide classification claims made on the basis of importer instructions and available records, particularly when the importer ultimately succeeds on merits.
Case Title: Shri Indihaf Jamal Mohamed v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2398/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely due to delay in registration if investment in new residential property is made within the prescribed time.
George George K (Vice President) stated that if the assessee has utilised the sale proceeds within the stipulated time, the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act, provided the assessee has satisfied the other conditions stipulated under Section 54 of the Act.
Case Title: Nico Extrusions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85057 of 2020, Customs Appeal No. 85085 of 2020
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside orders enhancing the value of scrap consignments merely on the basis of National Import Data Base (NIDB) data and a Directorate General of Valuation (DGoV) circular.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that the customs authorities could not discard the declared transaction value without strictly following Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and that mere comparison with NIDB data or reliance on the DGoV circular was insufficient to justify enhancement.
Case Detail: Vastrakala Exports Private Limited
The Mumbai, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) has held that import of Dyed Feathers, wherein dying activity took place in France was classifiable as 'Dyed Feather' in terms of the General Rules of Interpretation.
In a ruling dated December 15, 2025 Shri. Prabhat K. Rameshwaram on classification clarified that imported Feathers were intended for use as ornamental materials in embroidery for luxury brands and they underwent 'working' viz. washing, steam drying and dying activities.
Home Delivery Services By E-Commerce Platforms To Consumers Exempt From GST: West Bengal AAR
Case Name: In Re: Flipkart India Private Limited
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that transportation services proposed to be provided by Flipkart India Private Limited under a new logistics model qualify as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services and are exempt from GST when supplied to unregistered end customers under Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017–Central Tax (Rate).
Flipkart India Private Limited, which was already engaged in B2B trading of goods, proposed to introduce a logistics model involving transportation of goods exclusively by road for customers purchasing goods through an e-commerce platform operated by Flipkart Internet Private Limited. At the time of filing the application, the proposed activity had not commenced and the ruling was sought strictly in respect of the proposed model.
Services Performed Outside India Not Taxable Under RCM; No Import Of Services: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40357 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services performed outside India are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), even if payments are made by an Indian entity or involve group companies. The bench further opined that reimbursements to foreign subsidiaries do not constitute “import of services” in the absence of any service rendered by the assessee.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when services are performed outside India, even if the payment is made by an Indian entity or the contract involves group companies, the services are not taxable in India.
Case Title: M/s. GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40763 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the captive exemption under Notification 67/95-CE remains available even if the final product is partly cleared on duty payment and partly under exemption.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that captive exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE is available to the relays captively used in the manufacture of control panels cleared on payment of duty, under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.41180 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that while computing the amount of CENVAT credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only credit pertaining to common input services is required to be considered.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether cenvat credit of input services exclusively used for a dutiable product should be taken or the total cenvat credit of only common input service should be taken for the purpose of calculating the cenvat credit for reversal in terms of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Central Excise | Packaged Drinking Water Cannot Be Assessed On MRP Basis U/S 4A: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 41775 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that packaged drinking water is not liable to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act unless it is specifically covered by a statutory notification.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether packaged drinking water is to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title: Rimita Mukherjee
Case Number: WBAAR 15 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that digitalisation, GIS mapping, monitoring, data management and technical consultancy services provided to the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) in connection with water supply schemes qualify as “pure services” and are exempt from Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Notification No. 12/2017.
The Authority ruled that such services are directly related to functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities under Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution, particularly those concerning drinking water and sanitation.
Case Title: Vodafone West Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(1)(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 671/AHD/2015 and ITA No. 1634/AHD/2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that multiple additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained in law. The Bench held that the transfer of passive telecom tower assets pursuant to a court-approved demerger amounted to a genuine “gift” under Section 47(iii), and the Assessing Officer could not artificially impute consideration or deny depreciation.
It further ruled that roaming services do not involve human intervention so as to qualify as “technical services”, and therefore no TDS was deductible u/s 194J, rendering the consequential disallowance unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai Grants Major Relief To Capgemini; Holds IT/ITES Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit
Case Title: Capgemini Technology Services India Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Mumbai East Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 86740 of 2022
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has partly allowed an appeal filed by Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., holding that most of the input services used in provision of Information Technology/Information Technology Enabled Services output services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bench comprising Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban noted that Capgemini is engaged in providing IT and IT enabled services and avails CENVAT credit on input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
GSTAT Directs Builder To Return Over ₹20 Lakhs Benefit To Diya Greencity Homebuyers With Interest
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Diya Greencity Private Limited, Project-Diya Greencity
Case No.: NAPA/91/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Anti Profiteering Division at Delhi has directed the Builder to return ₹20,21,440 out of the Amount not passed on, along with interest to the homebuyers of Diya Greencity Project.
In a recent order, a Division Bench comprising, Shri. Mayank Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri. Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member) verified that benefit of about ₹13 crores to 1177 eligible homebuyers had been passed on but “No benefit has been passed to 21 homebuyers”
Case Title: Ex Servicemen Resettlement Society
Case Number: WBAAR 22 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that security and scavenging services provided to government-run medical colleges and hospitals qualify as “pure services” and are exempt from Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Notification No. 12/2017.
The Authority held that services essential to the functioning of public hospitals, when supplied without any element of goods, fall within activities relating to functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities under Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution.
US Government Pension Received In India Not Taxable Under India-USA DTAA: ITAT Delhi
Case Title: Jeanne Lee Cantrill v. DCIT, Circle-67(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6322/Del/2025 | AY 2016–17
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that pension received by a US national from a US government retirement fund cannot be taxed in India merely because the amount was received here, as the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) grants exclusive taxing rights to the United States.
A Bench comprising Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), while hearing the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016–17, examined whether pension received from a United States government retirement fund by an American national working in India could be subjected to tax in India, despite the specific exemption available under Article 19(2) of the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Case Title: Drive India Enterprises Solutions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85417 of 2022
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by Drive India Enterprises Solutions Ltd., setting aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which had rejected a refund of excess countervailing duty (CVD) paid on imported mobile handsets.
A Bench comprising Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban held that once the Bills of Entry were reassessed and amended by the proper officer under Section 17 read with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the statutory requirement for claiming refund under Section 27 stood fully satisfied.
GSTAT Withdraws Staggered Filing Requirement for GST Second Appeals; Allows Unrestricted E-Filing
Order Number: 315/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has withdrawn the requirement of staggered filing of Goods and Services Tax (GST) second appeals, allowing appeals to be filed without any phase-wise or date-based restriction.
Through an order dated December 16, 2025, issued by the President of the Tribunal, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, GSTAT revoked its earlier order dated September 24, 2025, which had mandated staggered filing of appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with the corresponding State and Union Territory GST Acts.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Case Number: SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10521 of 2019-DB
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Reliance Industries Ltd. is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on insurance services on a proportionate basis for the period on or after 01.07.2003, when Business Auxiliary Service became taxable.
Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) examined whether Cenvat credit is admissible on insurance services received during the period when output service (i.e. Business Auxiliary Service) was out of the tax net.
Case Title: M/s Embellishment v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70208 of 2021
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that in the absence of any documentary break-up between service receipts and retail sale of goods, the entire receipts of the Lakme Franchise beauty salon are liable to service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that no Notes on Accounts, which would have been part of the audited balance sheet/ profit and loss account, showing the proceeds from the sale of goods have been produced during the entire proceedings. In profit and loss account the receipts are shown under the head “Receipts from Beauty Salon”, No break up is available. In absence of any assumption the authorities have rightly presumed that the entire receipts are in respect of provision of services.
Case Title: M/s Bhagwati Products ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Noida
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 70604 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed appeals thereby upholding the Customs Department's decision rejecting the company's applications for a private warehousing licence and permission to carry out manufacturing operations under the Customs Act, 1962.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava was hearing the appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Noida, which had denied licences sought under Section 58 (private warehouse) read with the Private Warehousing Licensing Regulations, 2016 (PWLR), along with permission under Section 65 for manufacture and other operations.
Case Title: M/s. Neelamber Catters Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 75161 of 2024
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demands and denial of CENVAT credit raised holding that the issues were already settled in the assessee's favour in an earlier decision.
A Bench comprising Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal challenging the appellate order which had upheld service tax demands of ₹2.84 lakh and reversal of CENVAT credit of ₹1.44 lakh. The demand related to alleged service tax liability under reverse charge on manpower supply services and on remuneration paid to a director, along with consequent denial of CENVAT credit.
Case Name: National Foundation for Corporate Governance vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4),
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a Trust that had accumulated Income for Financial Year 2016-2017 to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and deleted addition of ₹37,99,090.
In a recent order, a Division Bench, comprising Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Shri Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) on effect of amendment restricting the accumulation period for income of charitable/religious trusts under Section 11, it was clarified that the Trust had retained the right to utilize funds till March 31, 2023.
Case Detail: Orchid Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Dietary Supplements were not food products, not pharmaceuticals, hence not eligible for area-based excise exemption.
A Bench comprising Smt. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Shri. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Pharmaceutical Company by upholding demand of ₹1.63 crore duty with interest as well as penalty equal to duty on the Company and personal penalty on Plant Head.
Case Title: Anil Kumar, Proprietor of Gajraj Hosiery Factory v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 60100 of 2018
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that imported ponchos are correctly reclassified under CTH 6102 as capes, rejecting the assessee's claim of them being scarves.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that when the expert has given a report on the impugned goods, the same cannot be brushed aside without any substantial evidence to counter the same.
Filing Appeal Before Wrong Appellate Authority No Ground For Condonation: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title: M/s Ganga Telecom v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70660 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the filing of an appeal before the wrong appellate authority does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) opined that the assessee had been duly informed about the jurisdiction in which the appeal was to be filed, and therefore, there could be no error in this regard. The claim of the assessee that the right appeal should not be effected for his own mistakes, and such arguments are not admissible for this reason.
Case Detail: Payal Synthetics Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that export restrictions on garnet, whether found along beaches or inland places without involving canalising agency i.e. Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) was banned.
In a recent ruling, the coram of Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) referred to a 2020 Circular issued by the Department of Atomic Energy to state that DGFT imposed restriction through a Notification dealt with sensitive materials seen from the perspective of national security and canalized exports through designated agencies only.
Film Broadcasting Licence Fees Not Royalty Under India–Mauritius DTAA: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: M/s Asia Today Limited Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 2(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 1403/M/2008 A.Y.: 2004-2005
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal, holding that the consideration received for granting non-exclusive broadcasting rights of Hindi feature films does not constitute “royalty” taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara was hearing the appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to tax ₹1 crore received from licensing film broadcasting rights as royalty.
Case Title: M/s OSC Export Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 141 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that revenue cannot reclassify input services or deny CENVAT credit at the stage of sanctioning a refund, without first challenging the assessment or invoking Rule 14 of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit Rules, 2004.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that it is not open for the Revenue to decide the classification of input service or to decide the eligibility of such input service at the time of sanctioning the refund.
Case Title: M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited Vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Adjudication Cell)
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 50804 of 2021
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside a service tax demand of over ₹18.84 crore against assessee, holding that the sale of food and beverages such as popcorn, snacks and soft drinks at cinema counters amounts to sale of goods and does not involve any element of “service” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited against an order passed by the Additional Director General of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), which had confirmed service tax demand, interest and penalty by treating the sale of food and drinks inside multiplexes as a “declared service” under Section 66E of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70718 of 2021
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the assessee has regularly disclosed CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit in ST-3 returns and furnished complete details while filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that it is also evident from the format of the return date appellant was only required to declare the total credit taken during the period of return under various heads, without detailing credit taken against specific service or the invoices. Even otherwise, when these invoices, all the documents were submitted alongwith the refund claim under Rule 5, authorities should have worked out and made the demand rather than waiting for another three years.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Petronas v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40128 of 2023
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when the availment of CENVAT credit is duly disclosed in statutory ER-1 returns and the assessee has regularly paid excise duty, allegations of suppression within the intent to evade duty cannot be sustained.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when the payment of duty remains undenied, and there is also no denial of the returns being filed by the assessee regularly, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression, that too with intent to evade duty, which could be alleged against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s S. Chatterjee & Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.75962 of 2017
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that works contract service provided to Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) for transmission or distribution of electricity is not liable to service tax.
Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) examined whether the works contract service provided by the assessee to Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) for transmission or distribution of electricity is liable to service tax or not.
Case Title: M/s. Agni Steels Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 41254 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that remuneration paid to whole-time directors does not constitute a taxable service. Consequently, service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) is not leviable.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that the remuneration paid to the Directors constitutes “salary” under an employer–employee relationship and is therefore not exigible to service tax.
No Service Tax Payable On Laying Of Cables Under Or Alongside Roads: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Precision Trenchless Laying Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76555 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that consideration received for laying of underground telecom/optical fibre cables under or alongside roads is not liable to service tax.
Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order under these specific categories is not liable to Service Tax, as all the amounts received by the assessee pertain to laying of cables under or alongside roads, which is not leviable to Service Tax as clarified by C.B.E.C. vide Circular No. 123/5/2010‑TRU.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40648 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that once benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures (HBP) are granted by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the same cannot be nullified by Customs through Notifications or Circulars issued under the Customs Act, 1962.
Ajayan T.V (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that if the Central Government in its wisdom introduces a beneficial scheme or provision under the FTDR Act, the benefit of such legislation are to be made available by another Department of Central Government, namely the Customs Department, for which purpose Notifications and Circulars are issued under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title: ACIT Vs. Mallics Jewels
Case No.: I.T.A No. 312/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an appellate order deleting a ₹2.75 crore addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period and has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
A Bench comprising Vice President Kul Bharat and Accountant Member Anadee Nath Mishra was hearing the Revenue's appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had earlier deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of a jewellery firm for Assessment Year 2017–18.
Case Name: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in a matter involving similarity of Muscle Relaxant sold domestically vis-à-vis exported by a Pharma major and benefit concessional duty thereof, has remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, cleared/sold multiple products in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated March 31,2003. As an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) can clear goods in DTA upto 50% of Free-On-Board (FOB) value of their physical exports i.e. a post-export entitlement.
Case Title: M/s JS Infrastructure Vs. ACIT Central Circle-2
Case No.: IT(SS)A No. 3120/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal filed by M/s JS Infrastructure, deleting an addition of ₹50 lakh made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in proceedings initiated under Section 153C.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara held that no addition could be sustained in a completed assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search.
Case Title: Ketan Himatlal Mehta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(!), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No. 2499/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2020-21
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an income tax addition of over ₹18.48 crore made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the disputed immovable property was held as stock-in-trade by the assessee.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant was hearing the appeal filed by an individual assessee for Assessment Year 2020-21 against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Detail: Charotar Gas Sahkari Mandali Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Tax-Vadodara
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 12621 of 2019- DB
The Ahmedabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand of service tax by treating payment of Rs. 60 lakhs to Vallabh Vidhyanagar Municipal Corporation as rent arrears and not consideration for tolerating/refraining from an act.
The Bench comprising, Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) examined whether Rs. 60 lakhs paid to Municipal Administration of Vallabh Vidhyanagar i.e. Vallabh Vidhyanagar Nagar Palika was 'Consideration' towards tolerating an act or outstanding dues towards Rent. They clarified that once the recipient Nagar Palika had treated the amount as 'Rent' on which they also paid service tax, service tax could not be paid on the said amount again on reverse charge basis under the category of Declared Service.
Profit From Securitisation/Sell-Down Of Loan Receivables Not Taxable As Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40272 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that profit earned from securitisation or sell-down of loan receivables, including upfront fees and excess spread income, being in the nature of income arising from the sale of receivables, is not exigible to service tax.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that there is no element of service in respect of the incomes received in the form of upfront fee and Excess Spread Income on Sell down, which are essentially income generated through sale of future receivables, and service tax cannot be demanded on the same.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42240 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that cutting and slitting of HR-CR coils does not amount to manufacture and therefore, payment of duty on such non-excisable activity cannot create a legal fiction to treat it as excisable. The bench further held that CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit availed in respect of such activity is inadmissible, even if duty was paid.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that if there is no manufacturing activity, the question of availment of input credit does not arise. Here, no manufacturing activity existed at all during 2010–2015. Therefore, the HR/CR coils fail the very existential requirement of input under Rule 2(k). The Payment of duty on non-manufactured goods cannot legitimise the credit.
Case Title: M/s. RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, (Imports)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40655 of 2023
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the AI-powered MIKO-3 smart robot performs the essential function of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines and cannot be classified as an electronic toy merely because it offers learning or entertainment features.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) observed that the Revenue has not discharged its burden of disproving the classification declared by the Assessee, and also not established with evidence as to its attempt to re-classify the goods in question as “electronic toys” alone.
Case Title: M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 40785 and 40786 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that excess duty paid on PCMX (Para-Chloro-Meta-Xylenol) used for manufacturing Dettol products is refundable, as the prices of products were controlled by the Government. The bench opined that under such circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that when prices are controlled by the government, the manufacturers cannot charge any amount over the fixed price determined by the government. Consequently, any excess duty determined to be in excess consequent to finalisation of provisional assessment cannot be treated as having passed on the duty burden to another person, and the question of unjust enrichment does not arise.
Apple Watch Bands Classified as Watch Straps, Not Smartwatch Parts: CAAR Mumbai
Case Detail: Apple India Private Limited
The Mumbai, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) in a ruling dated December 23 2025, has clarified that Apple Watch Bands (Leather and Non-Leather) could not be understood in its 'popular sense' as a part of Apple Watch.
Apple's Watch has a host of functionalities such as timekeeping, storage of data, voice messages, heart beat sharing, sketching via a paired IPhone. Apple's Watch gets covered under CTH 8517 6290 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Case Title: Western Industrial Co-operative Estate Limited Vs. DCIT Circle 32(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6514/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that rental income earned by a co-operative society from letting out its administrative building is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and not as “Income from Other Sources.”
A Bench comprising Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Jagadish was hearing cross appeals filed by Western Industrial Co-operative Estate Limited for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Case Title: M/s. Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 87321 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that I-STAT blood gas cartridges are accessories used solely with the I-STAT analyser and cannot be classified independent diagnostic reagents. Consequently, the cartridges follow the classification of the analyser, the differential duty is not payable.
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) held that since the glucometer strips have the same function of the Cartridges that are used in the I STAT analyser, accordingly the products are rightly classifiable under CTH 9027.
Case Title: M/s Proffer IT Consultancy Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (ACC Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51783 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that handheld barcode scanners, whose principal function is scanning, do not become smartphones merely because they have ancillary mobile features. The bench further stated that these scanners are entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that in the documents on record in the form of brochures, invoices, packing list etc., the imported goods are described as a Handheld Scanners. They are known as such to trade. Hence, there is no reason to hold that the product is smart phone merely because the product has an ancillary function of being used a smart phone.
Case Title: M/s Muchipara Consumers Co-Operative Stores Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51577 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that confiscated/seized cigarettes which do not comply with mandatory packaging, labelling and legal metrology requirements cannot be released for home consumption and therefore could not have been validly auctioned. Since the auction is vitiated, forfeiture of the security deposit is unsustainable.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that the auction notice may have required the assessee to perform certain acts but when the mandatory condition specified in the Rules and the Circular are not satisfied on the cigarettes packets that have been confiscated, the cigarette packets cannot be released in favour of the assessee and have to be destroyed.
ITAT Mumbai Restores Trust's 12AB Registration Matter To CIT(E) For Fresh Consideration
Case Title: Shri Hans Maharaj Trust Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 1721/Mum/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] rejecting the application of Shri Hans Maharaj Trust for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and has remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
A Bench comprising Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav and Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee was dealing with an appeal filed by the trust against the order dated 26.12.2024, whereby the CIT(E) had declined registration on the ground that one of the objects in the trust deed allegedly violated Section 11 of the Act by permitting application of funds outside India.
Case Title: DCIT Vs. Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd.
Case No.: ITA No. 4240/Del/2016 (AY 2010-2011)
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld substantial tax relief granted to Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2010–11, rejecting the Revenue's challenge to the company's deduction claimed under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act.
A Bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Krinwant Sahay, while deciding cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue, held that the tax department was not justified in treating the assessee's amalgamation as a sham or in tinkering with the method of allocation of after-market trading expenses.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Finance Ministry Tables Bill To Hike Excise On Tobacco, Introduces New Cess On Pan Masala
On December 1, 2025, the finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman introduced the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Health Security and National Security Cess Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha, which will replace the existing Compensation Cess.
The Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks “to give the government the fiscal space to increase the rate of central excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products so as to protect tax incidence”.
The Union Government on Wednesday introduced the Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha to bring the State GST law in line with amendments made under Sections 121 to 134 of the Finance Act, 2025 and decisions of the 56th GST Council.
The Bill proposes significant changes relating to input tax credit, distribution of credit, return filing, appeal pre-deposit, treatment of credit notes and, notably, introduction of a track-and-trace mechanism with unique identification marking for specified goods.
The Central Government in response to details of financial support and credit facilitation for the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) has clarified that effective April 01, 2025, the Ministry of MSME has expanded collateral-free financing by enhancing CGS coverage up to Rs. 10 crores with reduced guarantee fees.
Under the credit-linked subsidy schemes, tabulated statistics indicated that Government has in the last three financial years i.e FY 2022-23 to FY 2024-25 assisted 2.34 lakh units with Rs. 7,918 crores subsidy disbursed.
DGFT Allows Personal Carriage Of Gems & Jewellery Parcels Through Ahmedabad Airport Under FTP 2023
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, has amended Paragraphs 4.87(a) and 4.88 of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP) 2023 under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2023. The amendment now allows import and export of gems and jewellery parcels for personal carriage through Ahmedabad Airport, in addition to the previously listed international airports such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Kochi, Coimbatore, Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Jaipur.
The procedure for clearance remains unchanged and will continue to follow normal Customs regulations and banking norms.
Centre Defends GST Hike On Coal, Says It Cuts Power Generation Cost By 17–18 Paise/Unit
The Centre in response to estimated impact of GST reforms on domestic coal producers and import substitution, has clarified that by increasing GST rate on coal from 5% to 18%, the inverted duty structure has been corrected.
“GST has rationalized the tax burden across various coal grades, as the previous GST regime led to higher effective tax incidence on low grade coal and low priced coal.”
The Centre in response to tax treatment of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF), has clarified that the GST Council, in which the states are also represented, has not made any recommendation for inclusion of ATF under GST.
As for taxation on ATF, the Centre put forth that issue of high Value Added Tax (VAT) levy on ATF ranging from 0% to 29% in some States and Union Territories was addressed, resulting in reduction of VAT by 21 States and Union Territories. The Centre pointed out that under the Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS) – UDAN the central excise duty is only 2% for flights as opposed to 11% central excise duty on ATF together with different rates of VAT.
The Centre on Tuesday in response to impact of escalation in Tariffs imposed by the United States of America has clarified that it is countering through trade negotiations, export promotion schemes, credit support, RBI relief, and FTA diversification.
As immediate steps, the following Trade relief measures had been introduced to provide priority support for sectors hit by tariffs including textiles, leather, gems & jewellery, engineering, marine.
The Union Minister for Cooperation, has told the Lok Sabha that the Government received requests to exempt goods made by cooperative societies from GST. However, decisions on GST exemptions are taken by the GST Council, which is a constitutional body.
Despite this, the Minister said that the Central Government has already given many tax benefits to cooperatives to improve their financial strength and business growth.
Consumer Affairs Ministry Mandates Display Of Retail Sale Price On All Pan Masala Packs From Feb 1st
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has mandated for all pan masala packs of every size and weight to display the Retail Sale Price (RSP) from February 01, 2026.
The move facilitates the effective implementation of RSP-based GST levy on pan masala, enabling 'seamless enforcement of GST Council decisions', 'proper tax assessment' and 'revenue collection' across all pack sizes, including the smallest units.
The Centre has clarified on the status of applications under the Scheme to Promote Manufacturing of Electric Passenger Cars (SPMEPC) that non-participation of Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) was contingent on finalization of India–EU FTA negotiations.
The Centre referred to a stakeholder meeting with automobile OEMs to state that no applications before the deadline of October 21 was attributable to FTA uncertainty, supply chain restrictions, and high investment thresholds. The Centre also enlisted feedback from stakeholder consultation held with the OEMs for discussing the way forward and industry queries.
Centre Rationalises Drone Taxation: Uniform 5% GST, IGST & Customs Duty Relief For Flight Simulators
The Union Government has informed the Lok Sabha that drones across all categories will now attract a uniform 5% GST, following the recommendations of the 56th GST Council Meeting held on 03.09.2025, aimed at removing classification disputes and promoting ease of doing business in the aviation and emerging-technology sectors.
Replying to Unstarred Question No. 708, the Minister of State for Civil Aviatio, stated that the GST Council's decision rationalises the earlier structure under which drones attracted multiple GST slabs 5%, 18% and 28%, often leading to interpretational uncertainty and higher compliance burden. The new flat 5% rate is expected to boost drone affordability and adoption across industries.
Central Govt Ensuring GST Rate Cuts Are Passed On To Consumers: Finance Ministry Tells Lok Sabha
The Ministry of Finance has informed the Lok Sabha that, where several GST rates were rationalised, the Central Government has put in place a coordinated tax-administration mechanism to ensure that businesses actually pass on the GST rate-cut benefits to consumers.
The Finance Ministry stated that the CBIC has been monitoring prices of key GST-covered goods, including packaged foods and pharmaceuticals, comparing prices pre- and post-22 September 2025, when the revised rates took effect.
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has informed that from November-2025 tax period onwards, value of supplies auto-populated in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B from the returns/forms mentioned above, shall be made non-editable.
In an advisory dated December 05, 2025, GSTN stated that in case any modification/amendment is required in the auto-populated values of Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B, then the same can be done through GSTR-1A for the same tax period.
The Centre, in response to a question posed in the Lok Sabha, relating to black money routed through cryptocurrency, has informed that the Enforcement Directorate has attached, seized, and frozen proceeds of crime worth Rs. 4189.89 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA), 2002.
On Monday, December 08, 2025, in relation to Regulations governing cryptocurrency in the country, the Centre outlined statistics of tax evasion cases linked to cryptocurrency and Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) detected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on multiple occasions. As VDAs fall under the PMLA making Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) as Reporting Entities, the Centre enforced mandatory suspicious transaction reports to FIU-IND.
The Centre has acknowledged a sharp rise in GST evasion and Input Tax Credit (ITC) frauds, where bogus or dummy entities were found to be used as fronts for fake invoicing.
In a tabulated scale of Fake Invoicing Cases, the Centre has put forth number of cases registered and corresponding detection amount by Central tax formations during 2022-23, 2023-24 with the Financial Years 2024-25 and 2025-25 (upto October 2025) witnessing 15283 and 24109 cases. The statistics indicate that ₹7.5 crore ITC frauds were carried out in the pharmaceutical sector through inactive firms.
The Centre has clarified on Onion export ban and imposition of Minimum Export Price (MEP), were 'temporary' and 'necessary' to protect consumers, especially low-income households, during years when adverse weather conditions and lower arrivals led to sharp spikes in retail prices.
On fair-farmer remuneration, the Centre explained that it balanced consumer price stability and farmer remuneration by monitoring availability, arrivals, buffer stock position and price trends of Onions across the country. The Centre emphasized that all Onion export restrictions were withdrawn immediately once domestic availability stabilised. It was also noted that market prices of agricultural commodities depend on multiple factors, including arrivals, storage practices, traders' behaviour, quality variations and global price cycles.
A sharp escalation in the value of income tax disputes pending before High Courts has emerged from fresh data placed before Parliament, with the total disputed amount nearly doubling between FY 2020-21 and FY 2024-25. The figures were disclosed in a reply tabled in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance Pankaj Chaudhary, capturing year-wise pendency and amounts locked at each appellate stage.
The numbers paint a split-screen picture of India's tax dispute system. At the level of the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)/JCIT(A)), the volume of appeals has risen only marginally over five years, from 4.48 lakh in 2020-21 to 5.39 lakh in 2024-25.
Centre Projects ₹47,700 Crore Revenue Loss Amid GST Rate-Rationalisation
The Centre has estimated a Net Negative Revenue loss of ₹ 47,700 crore due to GST rate-rationalisation. However, it was clarified that shift from 28% to the 40% tax bracket were projected to account for an additional revenue of approximately ₹45,570 Crore.
The Finance Ministry in response to whether a Group of Ministers were to be constituted by the GST Council to address the issues of initial revenue losses incurred by the States due to GST 2.0, answered in negative.
Centre Notifies Reallocation Of Territorial Jurisdiction Of DRTs In West Bengal Under RDB Act
The Central Government has notified a reallocation of territorial jurisdiction among four Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in West Bengal through a notification dated December 16, 2025, issued by the Ministry of Finance under Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
The notification amends the earlier jurisdictions notified on March 15, 2017, and reorganises how cases are distributed among the Kolkata and Siliguri DRTs.
The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has imposed Anti-Dumping Duty on imports of “2-Ethyl Hexanol” from European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Taiwan and United States of America till June 26, 2026.
2-Ethyl Hexanol. 2-Ethyl Hexanol is a basic organic chemical. It is produced on a massive scale for use in numerous applications such as solvents, flavours, and fragrances and especially as a precursor for production of other chemicals such as emollients and plasticizers.
Centre Extends Anti-Dumping Duty On PET Resin Imports From China Till June 2026
The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has extended imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on imports of “imports of “Polyethylene Terephthalate” (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.72 decilitres per gram or higher” from China PR till June 26, 2026.
The Anti-Dumping Duty Notification applies to PET resin having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.72 decilitres per gram or higher” falling under tariff items 3907 61 90 and 3907 69 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act.
Taxpayers To Be Barred From Filing GSTR-3B Return For Excess GST ITC Claims: GSTN Issues Advisory
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has announced that taxpayers will soon be barred from filing Goods and Services Tax (GST) Return GSTR-3B if they attempt to claim or reclaim input tax credit (ITC) in excess of the balance available in the relevant electronic ledgers.
In the advisory issued on December 29, 2025, GSTN stated that negative balances and excess ITC availment will no longer be permitted in the Electronic Credit Reversal and Re-claimed Statement (ITC Reclaim Ledger) and the RCM Liability/ITC Statement. The system will enforce hard validations at the time of filing GSTR-3B, replacing the current warning-only mechanism.
Tamil Nadu Government Extends 100% Road Tax Exemption For Electric Vehicles Till 2027
The Tamil Nadu Government has extended 100% exemption on all Battery-Operated Vehicles both, Transport and Non-Transport (Electric Vehicles) from payment of Motor Vehicle Tax.
Electric vehicle adoption in Tamil Nadu has already reached 7.8% in 2025, the Minister of Industries said.
Customs Officers Must Wear Body Cameras During Baggage Clearance, Passenger Interactions: CBIC
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) has mandated Body Worn Cameras for Customs officers posted at International Airports, engaging closely with passengers at baggage clearance counters.
To align with global practices, Customs had started to adopt the digital technologies for audio and video recording, to enhance transparency, accountability and professionalism concerning passenger facilitation and intervention. For speeding up passenger flow while maintaining security, dual channel was implemented at International Airports. The Red Channel is for restricted or prohibited goods.