SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported TrampolinesCase Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTDCase Number: Diary No. 47976/2025The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement...
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTD
Case Number: Diary No. 47976/2025
The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL VERSUS SADHUMARGI SHANTKRANTI JAIN
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the registration of a trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which recognizes it as a charitable institution for income tax exemption purposes, is sufficient to entitle its donors to claim tax deduction benefits under Section 80G of the Act.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has issued notice on a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that once a charitable organization is registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be denied approval under Section 80G(5) for providing tax deduction benefits to its donors, merely on the ground that it also undertakes religious activities.
Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Case Number: Diary No. 49079/2025
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.
The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand. A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order, observing "We find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund Appeal
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 57088/2025
The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.
Transfer Of Title In Immovable Property Doesn't Attract Service Tax : Supreme Court
Case : Commissioner of Service Tax v M/s Elegant Developers
The Supreme Court has clarified that an activity which merely involves the transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale cannot be treated as a “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, such transactions lie outside the ambit of service tax.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi against M/s Elegant Developers, a partnership firm based in Allahabad. The Revenue had challenged a 2019 decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had set aside a tax demand of over Rs 10 crore against the firm.
Cause Title: LIPI BOILERS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) dismissed the Revenue Department's excise duty demand against a company that had manufactured and erected a large boiler at a customer's site, holding that the full contract value could not be subjected to central excise duty. The Court clarified that parts bought out externally and supplied to the customer for assembly, but not actually used by the manufacturer, would not attract excise duty.
“we arrive at the finding that the final product that emerges as a result of performing the obligations under the contract, does not constitute excisable goods under the Act, 1944. Consequently, the base value of the boiler on which excise duty is to be levied, cannot be equated with the total contract price. Therefore, the price of the bought out parts cannot be included in the value of the boiler for the purpose of computing central excise duty under the Act, 1944.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta while allowing the company's appeal against the CESTAT order which upheld the Revenue's demand for additional excise duty on bought out item.
Supreme Court Upholds View That Eden Gardens Not A 'Public Place' For Levy Of Advertisement Tax
Case Title: THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. Versus THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL AND ORS.
Case no.: SLP(C) No. 28566/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Calcutta High Court order which held that Eden Gardens stadium was not a "public place" for the purpose of levying advertisement tax under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for petitioner-Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for respondents.
Cause Title: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 SURAT VERSUS M. D. INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.
Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the assessee's right to challenge the assessment order on merits under the Income Tax Act, observed the Supreme Court.
"The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.", a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, dismissing the department's appeal.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD
The Supreme Court recently criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that the Department, despite having an entire team of legal experts, failed to act on its own lawyers' advice and instead allowed time to be wasted in unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Department's explanation for the massive delay, noting that "no one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process" for filing appeals within the statutory timeframe.
Supreme Court Leaves Open Question Whether Customs Can Seize Goods Which Left Port
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO VERSUS EPSILON EYE CARE PVT. LTD.
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) view that once goods are cleared from the port, customs authorities lose their power to confiscate them for violations such as non-compliance with license requirements.
However, the bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan left open the question whether the Customs Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port.
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Income Tax Department for filing yet another Special Leave Petition (SLP) in a matter already settled by the Court, calling it a frivolous exercise that contributes to mounting pendency.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an SLP challenging a Karnataka High Court order on tax deduction at source (TDS) liability, an issue the Supreme Court had already decided last year in a case involving Vodafone Idea, holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators were not liable for TDS.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
CENVAT Rules Cannot Apply Retrospectively To Concluded MODVAT Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Modi Rubber Limited v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 872 of 2021
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that where proceedings under the MODVAT (Modified Value Added Tax) Scheme had concluded prior to the introduction of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Rules, it would not be open to the revenue department to issue fresh notices against the assessee under the new scheme.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that, "The changed law did not make any specific provision to enable the revenue authorities to initiate a fresh proceedings, where earlier proceedings had already been initiated and concluded under the MODVAT scheme. Therefore, the revenue authority did not acquire the jurisdiction to issue the second Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.1998, on the issue that stood concluded by earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2000.”
Case Title: M/S Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4654 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while acting under Rule 86A of the UPGST Rules, authorities must record 'reason to believe' in 'writing'. It held that not doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the Rule.
“It may not forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a successful GST regime. Therefore, any doubt or suspicion alone may not lead an action by the authorities to block the ITC of the assessee and disrupt the entire value addition chain and consequentially tax payments without fulfulling statutory tax requirements, without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of law - to record 'reasons to believe', 'in writing',” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title: M/s Smm Infratech Private Limited v. State of U.P.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1121 of 2025
Recently, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that under the UPGST Act, a lien cannot be created on the assessee's bank account an year subsequent to the payment of taxes.
“It is clear that these liens have been created after more than a year of the petitioner having paid his taxes. Furthermore, the deeming fiction under Section 62(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would apply, and any further demands should have been withdrawn by the authorities,” held the division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 77 of 2025
While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
“While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the proceedings is a goal that all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities may pursue, at the same time, they may remain conscious of their non-negotiable commitment to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before such judicial decision making is achieved,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title: M/s Century Laminating Company Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager v. Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control Board
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 1001686 of 2004
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry.
“In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or incidental process carried on by a particular industry in running its business,” held Justice Irshad Ali.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1021 of 2025
Case name: M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor v. State of U.P. and 3 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST Authorities cannot claim jurisdiction for levying tax, penalty, and interest on work that was concluded prior to the implementation of the GST Act.
Notices were issued to the petitioner, a work contractor, for the Financial Year 2018-19 under the GST Act. The petitioner was unable to reply to the notices in time. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed, levying tax, penalty and interest on him. Aggrieved, he sought relief before the High Court.
Case Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.
He held that, despite the fact that the petitioner submitted the report with delay, the authority to take action was the Assistant Commissioner. It was held that the petitioner could not be suspended in a case where the appropriate authority chose not to cancel the GST registration of the firm in question.
Case Title: M/s Gospell Press Thru. Partner Mr. Rajiv Goyal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax LKO And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1283 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that notices under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for confiscation and levy of penalty, could not be issued for alleged violation of maintenance of accounts and records as required under Section 35 of the Act.
It was held that such notices under Section 130 could only be issued once the department had determined the liability of tax under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.
Cannot Cancel GST Registration Without Passing Reasoned Speaking Order: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while cancelling GST registrations, authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders. It held that doing otherwise would render the order unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
“Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any proper notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.
Case Title: M/S Sun Glass Works Private Limited v. The State of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2192 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that nothing under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the relevant rules, and notifications, allows the authorities to reserve judgements on the fixed date and pass them later, especially without informing the assessee.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply but the respondent passed an order levying tax and penalty, without providing the relevant materials or an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: M/s Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of UP and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not be invoked where excess stock was found at the time of survey
While dealing with a case regarding a search conducted under the GST Act, where upon finding discrepancies, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under S. 130 of the Act, Justice Piyush Agarwal held, “A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.”
Case Title: M/S Anil Art And Craft Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 5924 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the cancellation of GST registration of a business entity leads to it economic death and it is sine qua non that a reasoned order is passed by the authority for cancelling the registration of an assesee.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed: “We are equally mindful that the order of cancellation of registration causes deep adverse impact on the conduct of business of any registered individual. Neither the petitioner shall remain entitled to issue Tax Invoices nor may be entitled to avail tax ITC or to pass on ITC. Under the GST regime, it announces the economic death of the business entity.”
Case Title: M/S Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that under GST Act, the department cannot proceed against an assessee for transport of goods, if a genuine e-way bill is present along with the consignment.
Justice Piyush Agarwal held that this would be especially impermissible if the validity of the e-way bill was not disputed by the authorities.
Bombay HC
Case No. : Sales Tax Reference NO. 09 OF 2011
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that manufacturers cannot claim full sales tax set-off on furnace oil used in producing goods that are partly sold within Maharashtra and partly transferred to branches outside the state, ruling that a 6% reduction must apply under Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, on applicability of Rule 41D of the Sales Tax Act to furnace oil, endorses the view of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Pudumjee Pulp to state that “the logical corollary would be to apply the provisions of Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Sales Tax Rules as it stands, without reading it down, on the purchase of furnace oil in proportion to the finished goods despatched to the branches of Borosil.”
CASE NUMBER: WRIT PETITION NO. 6467 OF 2025
CASE TITLED:M/S SUMAN S. CONSTRUCTION VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
On November 14th, 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Suman Construction (“assessee” hereinafter), a government-registered civil contractor, which had challenged the service tax demand raised on road construction works for government departments.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the assessee could invoke a rectification application under Section 74 of the Finance Act to claim service-tax exemption for such government road projects, instead of filing a statutory appeal against the Order.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11261 OF 2025
CASE TITLED: SAVITRIBAI PHULE SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, KAMLAPUR VS. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION (INVESTIGATION) PUNE & ORS.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Charitable Trust “Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak” seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order passed by the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (Investigation) Pune whereby the Trust/Petitioner's application for condonation of delay 509 days in filing its Form 9A for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected.
Per Explanation below Section 11(7) of the Income Tax Act, 196, the Charitable Trusts were required to claim Application of Income on an “Actual Payment Basis”, incorporated after the Finance Act, 2022 from A.Y. 2022-2023 whereby the application of income was to be claimed on the basis of “Actual Payment Basis” and not “Accrual Basis”.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor P. Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that a rebate under Rule 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be denied without determining the tax liability on exported goods, and has remanded Yamaha's rebate claim to the principal commissioner for fresh consideration.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna were examining whether the India Yamaha Motor P. Limited was entitled to a rebate under Rule 18 CER 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6 September 2024 in respect of the finished products upon which BED and NCCD was paid by the Yamaha (initially by utilising CENVAT credit, and later in cash), in so far as such payments concern the export of the finished products outside the India.
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 32001 of 2025
Case Titled: Shabana Aijaz Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward- 3(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the reassessment notice did not follow the mandate that the Faceless Assessing Officer only has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was further stated that even international taxation matters could be made subject to the faceless regime.
A Division Bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, whereby the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice, on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(AO) violating the mandate of the reassessment notice to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer(AO).
CGST Act | Bombay High Court Stays GST Demand Order Over Delayed Service Of Showcause Notice
Case Titled: Octantis Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Union Of India And Anr
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6043 Of 2023
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to the assessee by staying the operation of a GST Demand Order
The Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ preferred by the assessee seeking to quash the GST demand order challenging the Show Case Notice to be time barred per Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Titled: Sukraft Recycling Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 540 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the Department to refund the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess to the assessee observing that a manufacturer exporting goods is entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit(ITC) of Compensation Cess, as Section 16(3)(b) of the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must apply to both the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Compensation Cess.
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P.Mehta stated that we find the justification offered to refuse the benefit to the Petitioner, to be completely lacking logic. and we say so, since we find that the two components, i.e. the component of input tax credit availed under CGST/IGST are different from that by way of compensation cess. Worth to note that the mechanism prescribed under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, in order to claim refund for making zero rated supply, is restricted to the CGST and IGST and this is evident from the definition of the term, 'input tax credit' under the CGST Act, as it do not include the compensation cess.
Case Title: Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a company that had ceased to exist due to conversion into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), holding that reopening of assessment against a non-existent entity is “illegal and bad-in-law”.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP (successor of Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.), challenging the reassessment proceedings.
Case Title: M/s Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012
The Bombay High Court has held that the assignment of the well-known trademark “Crocin” by Duphar Interfran Ltd. to SKB Plc (UK) amounted to a sale “in the course of export” of intangible goods, and therefore could not be taxed as a local sale within the State of Maharashtra under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a Sales Tax Reference overturned the view of the Sales Tax Tribunal and held that the situs of an intangible property follows the situs of its owner (mobilia sequuntur personam) and thus, the assignment of the trademark amounted to export, attracting the bar under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Charity Fund Vs. Income Tax, Officer (Exemption)
Case No. Writ Petition No. 4941 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 & 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated to re-open issues that were already scrutinized and accepted during the original assessment, observing that a mere change of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer does not constitute reason to believe nor permit reassessment.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while deciding a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148, which alleged that the assessee failed to specify the purpose of income accumulation under Section 11(2) in Form 10. The Bench stated that in the present case, all the material particulars and documents were before the Assessing Officer when the original assessment was conducted. There is no new material before the Revenue, nor are there any new facts or information to justify the reopening of the assessment.
Case Title: M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11118 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that an importer cannot be made liable to pay customs duty on goods that were never cleared for home consumption and were never received by the importer. The Court observed that, under Sections 13, 23 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, duty paid in anticipation of clearance becomes refundable once it is established that the goods were short-landed or lost before clearance.
A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was hearing a petition filed by M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. challenging the rejection of its refund claim for ₹35,37,358/–, paid as customs duty for 100 metric tons of PVC Resin imported under a Bill of Entry dated 27 April 2022. The petitioner had paid the full duty but never received the consignment.
Case Title: Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs. Citron Infraprojects Limited AADCC3733C
Case No: Income Tax Appeal(L) No. 34357 of 2024 and connected matters
The Bombay High Court has held that prior approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is not a mere technical or procedural formality, and that mechanical, en masse sanction without application of mind vitiates the entire assessment under Section 153A.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding a batch of over 60 Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue led by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4, dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, affirming the ITAT's ruling which had set aside assessments framed against the assesses, Citron Infra projects Limited, Helios Mercantile Limited, SVP Global Textiles Limited, Shri Vallabh Pittie South West Industries, and other connected entities.
Case Title: Evershine Enterprises Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3138 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is mandatorily required to verify and consider pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigation under Form SVLDRS-3 (final statement issued by the Designated Committee showing the exact amount payable by the taxpayer under the Scheme)
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the SVLDRS-3 demand statement from the assessee without adjusting tax already recovered and pre-deposits made. The Court stated that mere non-availability of challans cannot be a ground to disregard material produced within the permissible timeline. The Court observed that issuing SVLDRS-3 without such verification is contrary to Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which mandates adjustment of past payments.
Calcutta HC
Case Name: Tata Steel Limited (formerly Tata Steel BSL Limited) vs. UOI
Case No.: WPA 20381 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disallowance of ₹165 crores of CENVAT credit on steel structures, parts, accessories, and cement as confirmed earlier by the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, on the issue of abatement of the appeals, dismissed the grounds of challenge relating to (i) abatement of appeals before the CESTAT, and (ii) the Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue after the Corporate Insolvency of the assessee's erstwhile entity, Tata Steel Bhushan Steel Limited. Citing Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Court held that the CESTAT had become functus officio.
Case Title: Multireach Media Private limited & Anr Vs The state of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No: WPA No. 209333 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has held that where an adjudication order under the GST regime is uploaded on the GST Portal only under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the primary “View Notices and Orders” tab the resulting delay in filing appeal is to be condoned, considering that taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to check multiple tabs for final orders.
A Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while hearing a writ petition filed under the WBGST/CGST Act, directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits by condoning the delay, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹15,000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Title: Laxmi Ghosh v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 20364 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has stated that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) ITC (Input Tax Credit) declared in GSTR-9 can be set off against tax demand if missed in the monthly GSTR-3B.
Justice Om Narayan Rai bench observed that the appellate authority did not justify why the IGST ITC declared in GSTR-9 could not be set off against the tax demand.
Case Title: Rajneesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)
Case Number: WPO/398/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that the Income Tax Department cannot withhold a refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless it establishes tax liability.
The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that it is true that Section 245 of the said Act authorises the Income Tax Department to set off a refund against remaining tax payable. Unfortunately, in this case, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate that any amount is payable or is due from the assessee. Law does not sanction recovery of tax in the absence of any specific charging statutory provision.
Delhi HC
Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3542/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) to conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of coming up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as 'body massagers' or sex toys.
The bench opined that the question as to whether any product is obscene or not cannot, obviously, be left at the discretion of the Commissioner of Customs and other individual officials in the absence of uniform guidelines for consistent practice in this regard.
Case title: M/s Vedanta Ltd v. ACIT Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16378/2025
In granting relief to Vedanta Limited, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the the Income Tax Department for initiation of reassessment action against the Copper manufacturer, over alleged fraudulent availment of Input tax credit worth over ₹424 Crore.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the GST Department had already closed the case. “Closing of the proceedings by the GST Department would have an impact and bearing on the Section 148A proceedings and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter deserves to be remanded for reconsideration, in view of the GST order dated 11th July, 2025,” the judges said.
Case title: Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 105, Zone 4, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16555/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 61(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 bars further action against an assessee, including any demand under Section 73. For context, Section 61 empowers the proper officer to scrutinize the return furnished by the registered person and inform him of the discrepancies noticed. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that in case the explanation offered by the registered person is found to be acceptable, no further action shall be taken.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that since Section 73, which pertains to determination and recovery of tax, does not have a non-obstante clause, it comes within purview of Section 61(2) and thus, issuance of demand on the same ground on which the explanation was in fact found acceptable previously, would not be tenable.
Informer Of GST Evasion Cannot Seek Reward As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court
Case title: XY v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15498/2025
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that an informer, who apprises the Department about evasion of goods and services tax by an entity, cannot seek reward for sharing such information as a matter of right.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were of the prima facie view that no such right vests in any informer. “In the opinion of this Court, the grant of an award or a reward to an informer is a discretionary grant,” it said.
Case title: Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15373/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticized the Income Tax Department for an over 2-year delay in implementing an ITAT order, directing it to reconsider the demand raised against an assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and aShail Jain observed that the Income Tax Department must implement judicial orders with “alacrity” however in this case, it woke up only after the assessee moved the High Court to seek enforcement of the ITAT order passed back in January 2023.
Case title: Gameloft Software Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Range 152 & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16315/2025
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Goods and Services Tax Department to expeditiously process the refund applications filed by registered persons/ entities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “As per the statutorily prescribed procedure, the refund applications have to be dealt with in a particular manner within the prescribed timelines as per law…if there is delay by the Department in processing and granting refunds, it has a cascading adverse effect on the business of the tax payers as well.”
Communication On Email Address Is Sufficient Service Under Section 169 GST Act: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/s Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2394/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that under Section 169(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “With respect to Section169 of the Act, this Court has also taken a view recently in W.P. (C) 4374/2025 titled Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, North & Anr. that communication on the email address is sufficient communication.”
Case title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16869/2025
The Delhi High Court has clarified that a traveller, whose goods are seized by the Customs, is not liable to pay a redemption fine or penalty for the release of goods if the Department failed to issue a show cause notice within the statutory timeframe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain observed, “It is the settled position in law, after Union of India &Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (/2024) that without a SCN under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods of the Petitioner would be liable to be unconditionally released…In view of the above decision, the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of the goods subject to payment of applicable Customs Duty. No redemption fine or penalty would be liable to be paid by the Petitioner and no interest would be liable to be charged.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Gupta v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15917/2025
The Delhi High Court recently slammed a trader, allegedly involved in clandestine manufacture of pan masala to evade tax and recovery of ₹70 lakh from his premises, for his failure to cooperate in the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain in this backdrop upheld the GST Department's order, denying the Petitioner-trader's right to cross-examination. It observed, “the right to cross-examination is not an unfettered right…the non-filing of a reply to the SCN and the repeated adjournments which have been sought by the Petitioner…leaves no manner of doubt that the Petitioner has not co-operated with the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner's case, in the opinion of this Court, is prima facie not bona fide.”
Case title: Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16820/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where fraudulent availment of tax by a fake firm comes to light, penalties can be imposed on the person behind the bogus operations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain observed, “When the expression 'taxable person' has to be interpreted, the 'taxable person', so long as it is an identified real person/entity it would be the said person/entity itself. However, in the case of fake, nonexistent and fraudulent firms, who do not have any real persons as partners or proprietors or even any incorporation, the 'taxable person' would be the person who has got such firms created and used the same for availment of ITC.”
Case title: M/S Shiva Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, GNCTD
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13977/2025
In an unusual turn of events at the Delhi High Court, an “innocuous” petition filed by a trader seeking cancellation of its GST registration unravelled fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit worth lakhs.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the trader, ₹2 lakh of which would go to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, ₹2 lakh to the GST Department and remaining ₹1 lakh to the Sales Tax Bar Association.
Case title: M/S Swarn Cosmetics (India) v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16532/2025
The Central Goods and Services Tax Department recently explained to the Delhi High Court the process its officers follow when uploading any show cause notice or order on the GST portal. The explanation was tendered in response to a plea filed before the Court, challenging the legality of a demand order on the ground that the impugned SCN and the impugned order were not duly signed either physically or digitally.
The Department now uses digital keys to upload orders on the GST Portal, and without the digital key of the concerned officer, the orders as well as the SCNs cannot be uploaded.
Case title: Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukund Maheshwari v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16455/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts must, while dealing with cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, balance the interest of trader with that of burden on State exchequer due to tax evasion.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC…there are complex transactions involved which require factual analysis and consideration of voluminous evidence, as also the detailed orders passed after investigation. 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.”
Case title: BSNL v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 166/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) to belatedly challenge the Rs. 12,63,01,812/- imposed upon it by the Customs Department for misdeclaration of imported goods.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the public autonomous service provider showed no valid justification for the delay in approaching CESTAT however, “considering the fact that there was a voluntary declaration by B.S.N.L., prima facie there appears to be some merit in the contention of the B.S.N.L., that it is entitled to be heard on merits.”
Case title: C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15508/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the time limit set out under 73(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature, and cannot be excused on account of technical glitches on GST portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus quashed a SCN issued after the 3-month gap prescribed under the provision.
Case title: Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16214/2025
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the Delhi Development Authority cannot levy GST on conversion of property from leasehold to freehold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Prime facie, it clearly appears that conversion is nothing but a part of the process of sale of the immovable property by the DDA to purchasers and GST would not be liable to be charged on such conversion in terms of Section 7(2) of the CGST Act itself.”
Case title: GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence HQ & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16259/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) provisionally attaching the bank accounts of a trader.
The provisional attachment was challenged on the ground of competency of the officer to pass such an order. Petitioner had argued that in terms of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 only the GST Commissioner can order provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.
Case Name: Puneet Batra vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No. : W.P.(C) 11021/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the application by the GST Department seeking the handing over of the parsed hard drives of the seized Central Processing Unit (CPU) of an advocate, which is in possession of the IT Officers of the Court, for further examination.
In doing so, the Court has instructed the presence of representatives from both sides, including a Court officer, and directed the submission of parsed data and hard drives to the Court.
Case title: M/S IMS Mercantiles Ltd v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15527/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Department for demanding tax on the total turnover of a company, despite figures of the actual sales being available with it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The Court finds a fundamental flaw in the approach of the Adjudicating Authority that, though the actual sales of the entire combo packs, on both B2B and B2C sales was available with the Adjudicating Authority, the GST is being demanded on the total turnover…The tax evasion, if any, is in respect of B2B and B2C sales. There is no reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority, as to why GST is being sought to be levied on the total turnover.”
Case title: Sushil Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs [Export]
Case no.: CUSAA 81/2019
The Delhi High Court recently refused to show any leniency to two employees of a Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA), found involved in smuggling of cigarettes worth Rs.3,40,74,000/-.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that CHAs and their employees are responsible to ensure discharge of obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Case title: Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1064/2025
The Delhi High Court has quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to a company before conducting audit, holding that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by issuing the SCN before expiry of time granted to respond to the pre-SCN.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “the Petitioner was given time to file submissions till 28th November, 2024…However, surprisingly, the authority has decided to issue the SCN itself one day before the said day expires i.e. on 27th November, 2024 itself. Thus, this would be completely in violation of the principles of natural justice in terms of the pre-SCN itself. Accordingly, the SCN is set aside.”
Case title: Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16970/2025
Stating that Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act, the Delhi High Court refused to waive the pre-deposit for appeal by certain Customs Housing Agents against ₹30 crore penalty imposed upon them over import fraud.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The clear position is that the Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act as also the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The CHA ought to perform the same with diligence and commitment. In the present case, permitting misuse of the CHA licence, that too after receiving monthly remuneration for the same shows that the license itself has been sub-let without any control over the same.”
Case title: Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2685/2021
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a Turkmenistan national, alleging that the Indian Customs Department had illegally arrested him in connection with alleged gold smuggling back in 2018.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the Department had produced the seized gold jewellery in a sealed cover and the same, upon inspection, could not be termed as 'personal effect' of the Petitioner.
Case title: Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya
Case no.: CUSAA 162/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered forfeiture of ₹2,00,000/- out of the ₹5 lakh security deposit made by a Customs Broker at the time of obtaining license, citing allegations of duty drawback fraud against it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with an appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order, restoring the Respondent-broker's license and setting aside forfeiture of security deposit.
Case Name: Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16727/2025
The Delhi High Court, while examining whether pre-consultation prior to a GST Show Cause Notice was mandatory or discretionary, granted interim relief to Aadhar India by permitting the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 29 November 2024 to continue, but directing that any final order passed pursuant thereto should not be given effect without further orders of the Court.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, heard a writ petition on the constitutional validity of Notification No. 79/2020- Central Tax dated October 15, 2020 (Notification) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Notification amended Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by making pre-consultation to the Show Cause Notice under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, discretionary and unlike the previous regime in which it was held to be mandatory.
“Gross Concealment”: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Party In Poppy Seeds Smuggling Case
Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17242/2025
The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by the Court.
Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Orders Passed By Audit Officer Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction
Case title: H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: ST.APPL. 63/2014 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.
Form DVAT-50 enables the VAT Commissioner to authorize officials for carrying out audit, investigation and enforcement functions under Delhi Value Added Tax Act and Rules. However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that no such authorization was made in favour of VATO (Audit) before 15th October, 2014.
Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15169/2025
The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain stated that the officials of the GST Department ought to have re-inspected the new premises for Show Cause Notice proceedings to continue. It was also noted that present petition was limited to retrospective cancellation of the GST registration.
Case title: M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17106/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside the demand raised against a stock broker, noting that both the show cause notice as well as the final order were bereft of any reasons, disabling the broker to make effective representation.
“It is seen that the SCN actually does not give any reasons…Even the impugned order does not give any reasons,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10189/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus held that Global Opportunities Private Limited will be entitled to claim GST refund on export of services under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Reconsidering Cap On Value Of Gold Jewellery Permitted At Airports: CBIC To Delhi High Court
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has informed the Delhi High Court that it is considering increasing the cap on the value of gold that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
Currently, the Baggage Rules 2016 permit any jewellery of 20 grams with a value cap of Rs. 50,000/- in case of a man and 40 grams with a value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of a woman to be cleared free of duty.
Case title: Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15646/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed Delhi Sales Corporation to deposit pre-SCN penalty contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, despite issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(8).
This, after a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner-Corporation had already deposited tax and interest in terms of Section 74(5).
Case title: Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16355/2025
The Delhi High Court recently found time-barred, an income tax reassessment notice generated by the Department on the last day of the limitation window but, issued to the assessee only a day after.
The limitation period in the case at hand expired on June 30, 2025 (inclusive). The Income Tax Department claimed that the notice was generated on June 30, 2025 at 21:14:46 and signed on June 30, 2025 at 21:16:15 however, due to a technical glitch, it was shared on the assessee's e-filing portal only the next day.
Case title: Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16937/2025 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The position has been in dispute since introduction of the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, which led to the setting up of the National Faceless Assessment Centre with Faceless Assessing Officers.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd
Case no.: ITA 494/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Once the assessee discharges its initial onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and also the genuineness of the transaction, it is not incumbent upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the funds at the hands of its lender, i.e., the “source of the source” of the funds.”
Case Detail: A AND T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi, West
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a writ petition against the Show Cause Notice by the Customs Department, instead of the GST Department, for recovery of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to about Rs. 5 lakhs from the exporter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has listed the matter for February 24, 2026 while observing that “However, insofar as the question as the inter-play between the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the IGST Act and CGST Act is concerned, the matter requires consideration.”
Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17680/2025
The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Saurabh Banerjee while hearing Petitioner-firm's challenge to dismissal of its appeal against demand on the ground of it being barred by delay.
Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16741/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.
The Petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm, who has a dealership agreement with M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in respect of domestic & commercial Liquified Petroleum Gas for a period of 10 years.
Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16724/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain said, “the Petitioner cannot be rendered completely remediless in this matter as he may have proceeded on the legal advice.”
Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16137/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.
For context, Section 110 deals with Seizure of goods. It stipulates that where any goods are seized, and no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods shall be returned. Provided that the Principal Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months.
Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15791/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.
“Statements under Section 108 would not be admissible in evidence,” said a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16345/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with a challenge to detention of Petitioner's gold chain weighing 54 grams.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers
Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3542/2025 (and connected petition)
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.
Petitioners' import goods were confiscated for alleged mis-declaration of sex toys as body massagers. While ordering their provisional release, the Court had previously asked the Department to come up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of such products.
Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case No: W.P(C) No. 5464/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a writ petition filed by Navin Road Lines, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) refusing to entertain the Service Tax appeal on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit was not made under the Service Tax head, even though the assessee had already deposited ₹1,49,190 under the Excise category.
Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17699/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further criticised the GST Appellate Authority, which upheld the cancellation in a 'cavalier' manner. The judges remarked, “The present petition reveals a sad situation where a reputed company is being made to deal with an unjustified cancellation of its GST registration…There is no reason given in the impugned order as to why the documents filed by the Petitioner were not considered, except stating that your reply is not considerable…An Adjudicating Authority has to show basic fairness, especially in the case of companies which are regular tax payers and who have filed the replies in time along with the requisite documents.”
Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.
Perusing the language in which the provision is couched, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “...it uses the word 'shall'. However, the provision also stipulates that the said period is to be adhered where it is possible to do so.”
Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body
Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17694/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing the plea of a foreign education consultancy company, whose appeals for tax refund have been pending since four long years.
Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16754/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held the challenge to the SCN as 'premature' and noted existence of a clandestine server that revealed a parallel accounting system and modus operandi of the Petitioner. The High Court deliberated upon GST evasion of more than Rs. 88 crores through suppressing income, dual books, underpriced invoices, statutory audit records, digital devices including WhatsApp communication as set out in the Show Cause.
Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17500/2025
The Delhi High Court recently said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).
Vide the said decision, the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain had held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness
Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16974/2025
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, after considering the facts of the case and on the basis of the medical records, were of the view that the lapse was “bonafide”.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return
Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17379/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar remarked, “Surely it should not take nine months to realize that initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return.”
Gujarat HC
Case Title: Cardiogy Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Anr.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16927 of 2011
The Gujarat High Court has held that the supply of medicines and implants by private hospitals to in-patients amounts to 'deemed sale' and is liable to VAT (Value Added Tax). The issue before the bench was whether the supply of medicines, stents, implants, consumables, etc., during the course of treatment of patients amounts to 'sale' as defined in section 2(23) of the VAT Act.
The bench, consisting of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray, observed that after the 46th Amendment to the Constitution, the definition of “works contract” was widened and it is broad-based based taking within its fold every possible and conceivable contract involving transfer of property while providing services.
Case Name: Kamnath Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer
Case No. : Special Civil Application No. 1231 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court has extended benefit of Amnesty Scheme under the Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) Act, 2003 to dealer who was precluded from making full payment under the Scheme on account of 'automatic' re-adjustment of instalment amount.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi set aside rejection of application under the Scheme noting that non-payment of differential amount was only due to technical glitches of the online portal. The High Court emphasized on 'clear and unequivocal intent' to avail the Scheme and observed that “The delay of 2 days in making the payment in the aforesaid Scheme is condoned.”
Case Name: VVF India Ltd. vs. Union Of India
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 4418 of 2014
The Gujarat High Court in a writ petition has quashed a show cause notice creating duty demand of about Rs. 464 crores on import of Crude Palm Kernel Oil (Edible Grade).
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi ruled on whether Oil even if of edible grade but required refining before human consumption qualified for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2022-Customs r/w Notification No. 21/2002-Customs (Exemption Notification). The High Court rejected the interpretation that crude palm kernel oil imported of edible grade is not eligible for exemption on account of the 'end-use condition' specified in the Exemption Notification.
Case Detail: Shah Paper Plast Industries Limited & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 18892 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the Petitioners—100% EOUs exporting goods without payment of tax—were entitled to refund of unutilised ITC under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(4), and that their exports did not fall within the category of “deemed exports.”
The Court ruled that Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) were inapplicable, quashed the withdrawal and recovery of refunds issued under Section 73, rejected the retrospective reclassification of zero-rated supplies as deemed exports, and directed restoration of refunds within 12 weeks while leaving broader questions of law on refund scrutiny and recovery open.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Title: Kaher Singh & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that obtaining registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not amount to authorisation to conduct a trade or business, nor can payment of tax legitimise an otherwise unlicensed commercial activity.
The High Court clarified that taxation statutes and regulatory licensing statutes operate in distinct spheres, and compliance with one cannot override mandatory licensing requirements under another.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: M/s. Maa Kalyani Electrical Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition(T) No. 5009 Of 2025
The Jharkhand High Court held that once an appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount, the Appellate Authority does not become functus officio and was competent to decide the appeal on merits if the mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service Tax amount was subsequently complied with by the assessee.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar, stated that the appeal at the earlier occasion was dismissed solely on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to make the pre-requisite mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount before filing of the appeal and not on merits and this has been specifically noted in the order dated 10.01.2023. Therefore, once the appeal had not been decided on merits but had, in fact, not been entertained, there was no question of the Authority of having become “functus officio” after the deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount as alleged by the writ petitioner.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Sri Mukesh Gupta v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO 283 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court has held that a loan raised by mortgaging property and advancing to a company does not constitute business expenditure, and the interest is not deductible against salary income.
The bench opined that unless expenditure is incurred in the course of the business or professional service, the assessee is not entitled to a deduction, merely due to it being incurred on the amount borrowed and advanced to the company.
Case Name: Gunnam Infra Projects Private Limited
Case No. : WP(C) No.611 of 2025
The Karnataka High Court holds that payments made by assessee through Form GST DRC-03 at the time of search or pursuant to an investigation cannot be treated as 'voluntary payments' when amount was not determined through any formal assessment or adjudication.
A Bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed deficiency memos issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (Revenue) on two different dates rejecting refund sought by assessee. On this score, it was observed that “the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03” as a deficiency memo cannot be issued when a refund application is complete in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 27259 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Centre cannot retain wrongly paid IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) once the correct tax is paid to the State authorities.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that since the assessee had wrongly paid IGST and later paid the correct tax to the State GST, the Central government must refund IGST to the assessee.
Case Title: Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2023 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that the assessee's payment of Rs. 10 crores could not be treated as a voluntary payment under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act), as the DRC-03 shows 'NIL' entries for both interest and penalty. The bench observed that the 'NIL' entries clearly indicated that the payment was made by the assessee under coercion and under the threat of arrest.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that prior to the search and inspection conducted by the department, they did not issue any notice to the assessee nor were any proceedings to ascertain, adjudicate or determine the tax, interest and penalty payable by the assessee which indicates that there was no occasion for the assessee to pay the said sum voluntarily by way of self-ascertainment to the department, thereby indicating that the said amount was not paid voluntarily by the assessee.
Kerala HC
Case Title: M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 63 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deduction under Section 32AC after proper inquiry.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that merely for the reason that AO extended the deduction claimed after carrying out investigations, the exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act is not required. At worst, the revisional authority can correct the error, if any, committed by the AO, by holding that the extension of the benefit of deduction was erroneous, with reference to the purchase of the assets during the previous years.
Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Appellate Order Against AMMA, Directs Fresh Consideration
Case Title: M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case No: WP(C) 39703/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), against the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), holding that the appellate authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by rejecting AMMA's appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, without addressing the merits of the case as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Vittal Sait Popat v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4193 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court has held that disclosure of income and payment of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not preclude initiation of proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that the fact that the assessees have disclosed the income in the return and the same was proceeded against under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere with the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Case Title: Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7053 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that co-operative societies not engaged in banking are not entitled to TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) exemption under section 194A (3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was dealing with a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the proviso to section 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposed a restriction, based on the gross receipts or turnover of the Societies, in the matter of exemption from the obligation to make TDS from the income as the interest on deposits.
Case Title: Liyakhat Ali v. The Commissioner, State GST Department
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44655 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the GST Department to take action on alleged tax evasion involving frozen chicken being sold at 0% GST instead of the applicable 5%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. recorded that the petitioner, who is a chicken meat dealer, had highlighted serious allegations of tax evasion in sale of frozen chicken in Kerala.
Case Title: M/s Shree Contractor v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 37299 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that a contractor can claim increased GST (Goods and Services Tax) during work, even if bills were paid before the rate increase.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that at the time of execution of the contract, the rate was only 5% and the increase took place during the execution of the work. Thus, the assessee is entitled to a differential amount of tax.
Case Title: Saleena Shaul Hameed v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40341 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a cancelled GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim the ITC (Input Tax Credit) benefit under Section 16(6) CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that Section 16(6) does not envisage a fresh cause of action in respect of the taxpayers, whose registration is cancelled, for getting the restoration of the registration, only for the purpose of availing the benefit of Section 16(6).
Case Title: M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15898 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court has held that under the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003), the assessing authority cannot cancel permission to pay tax at compounding rates for suppression in the same year it was opted, and only the suppressed turnover can be taxed at normal rates.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim opined that cancellation proceedings are still pending, and the cancellation is not carried out, and the assessment is not concluded on a best judgment assessment basis. In such a case, Section 25AA(5) is applicable, and the option of compounding shall not be cancelled, and the suppressed turnover alone shall be assessed at the scheduled rate applicable to the goods. In view of Section 25AA(5), the Notices proposing to cancel the permission to pay at a compounded rate are clearly unsustainable.
Case Title: M/s Ridha Polymers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17324 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an affidavit by professionals, such as a cost accountant, given during a personal hearing, cannot be ignored, especially when a state tax officer admits facts referred therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that when a professional swears an affidavit before this Court, highlighting the matters that transpired during the course of the hearing, the same cannot be simply ignored, particularly in a situation where, to some extent, there is an admission forthcoming from the part of the State Tax Officer with regard to the matters referred to in the said affidavit. Therefore, the assessee can be granted one more opportunity to be heard.
Case Title: Anish Thomas v. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33642 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding that the assessee missed the hearing due to the non-functional video-conference link (VC link) and because the hearing link was emailed at an odd hour, i.e., at 3:13 a.m. CDT (Central Daylight Time) while he was in the U.S.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the assessee could not utilise the opportunities for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the assessee can be granted another opportunity for a hearing.
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.45 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments, as it was bound by an interim order which prohibited such deduction.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the SBI, having been restrained by an interim order of the High Court from deducting TDS, could be held to be an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Name: Ojas Construction through its Partner Rachna Pathak vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 39844 of 2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed writ petition by a builder seeking reimbursement or refund of differential 6% GST on account of increase in rate (from 12% to 18%) on government works contract w.e.f. July 18, 2022.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the 47th GST Council Meeting which approved suggestions of the Group of Ministers on Rate Rationalization, increased GST rate (from 12% to 18%) on works contract was notified vide Notification No. 03/2022 Central Tax (rate) dated July 13, 2022 (Rate Notification). CBIC vide Circular No. 177/09/2022-TRU dated August 03, 2022 clarified certain issues for implementation relating to GST rates on works contract services.
Madras HC
Case Title: D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos.30938
The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that …three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already expired on 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. However, Section 148 Notices were issued for these Assessment Years only on 29.07.2022 with approval from the Principal Commissioner instead of approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner in terms of amended provisions as in force for the period in dispute were in time…
TNGST Act | Purchase Tax Cannot Be Levied on Buyer for Seller's Tax Default: Madras High Court
Case Title: Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number: W.P. Nos.19625
The Madras High Court on Monday held that purchase tax cannot be levied under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act) on the purchaser merely because the seller failed to pay tax.
The bench, comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, clarified the scope of Section 7A in transactions where the vendor has defaulted on tax payments. "Having found that the sale to petitioner is liable to tax in the hands of the petitioner's vendor, levy of purchase tax only on the premise that petitioner's vendor had not remitted tax cannot be sustained. If petitioner's vendor fails to remit appropriate tax, Revenue ought to proceed against the petitioner's vendor, instead any levy of purchase tax by the respondent would be bad for want of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained", it said.
Case Title: Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number: W.P.No.6814 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that delay in filing Form 10B required under Section 44AB for the purpose of Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a ground to deny legitimate exemption tax exemptions.
Justice C. Saravanan observed that the assessee was registered as a “Trust” in the year 2017. Effectively, the assessee would have carried on operation as a “Trust” from 01.04.2017 onwards, which would fall under the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
Case Title: M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
Case Number: C.R.P.No.5237 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that an auction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) Act, 1957, is valid when the property is valued by a valuer and registered under Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act.
Chief Justice Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan opined that out of the two valuation reports placed before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal has accepted the valuation made by approved valuer, registered under the provision of Wealth-Tax Act, it cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA Nos.794 and 795 of 2016
The Madras High Court has held that depreciation on payment to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for infrastructure development is not allowed, but the assessee is eligible for 5% annual revenue deduction.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan were addressing the appeal pertaining to the claim of depreciation on the sum paid to the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for the development of infrastructural facilities.
Case Title: M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.10194 of 2025
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that hostels providing accommodation to working men and women are residential properties and, therefore, property tax, water tax, and electricity charges cannot be levied at commercial rates.
The ruling came in response to petitions filed by hostel owners in Chennai and Coimbatore challenging Chennai municipal authorities and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) for reclassifying their hostels from residential to commercial premises and demanding significantly higher taxes.
Case Title: Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(MD)Nos.30453
The Madras High Court has held that using the word 'Determined' in the show cause notice (SCN) betrays an element of pre-determination on the part of the authority. The bench highlighted that the show cause notice must clearly specify whether the assessee is being charged with fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench stated that the authority has used the word “determined”. There is an ocean of difference between specifying something and determining something. The word “determined” found in the show cause notice cannot be construed as “specified”.
Case Title: M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: W.P.Nos.17912 of 2023
The Madras High Court has held that once CESTAT has classified wheat gluten as eligible for DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) exemption, Customs authorities are bound by those findings and cannot independently deny the exemption benefits.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated that the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that Wheat Gluten is not covered under the DFIA Licence and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption. If the CESTAT has already taken a view that Wheat flour and Wheat Gluten fall under the same classification, the entire proceedings of the respondent cannot be sustained, since all the other findings hinge upon only this issue.
Madras High Court Orders New PAN For Assessee After Dept-Issued Duplicate PAN Ruins CIBIL Score
Case Title: S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.21548 of 2022
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a fresh PAN (Permanent Account Number) to the assessee, who suffered adverse consequences because the defaulter holding the same PAN had a bad CIBIL. The bench held that the assessee cannot be made to bear serious CIBIL consequences arising from the Income Tax Department's duplicate PAN allotment.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that the PAN that was allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007 was also erroneously allotted to the said person, namely Subramaniyan Senthil S/o. Subramaniyan. Although the said person has been given a new identity, the mistakes committed by the said person have affected the assessee, as the identity of the assessee and his financial transactions are traceable to the PAN that was originally allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007, which is in the cloud.
Orissa HC
Audit Assessment Under Orissa VAT Act Is Invalid If Audit Visit Report Is Time-Barred: High Court
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited v. State of Odisha
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 12443 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has held that an audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act (Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005) cannot be initiated when the AVR (Audit Visit Report) is beyond the limitation period.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman were examining whether the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with Audit Assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act by issuing of statutory notice in Form VAT-306 on the basis of the AVR submitted under Section 41 after the expiry of the limitation period.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: M/s King Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number: ITA-96-2012 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that re-assessment proceedings beyond four years are invalid when the original assessment has been finalised under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. In case of an Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, a scrutiny is carried out to confirm the correctness and genuineness of various claims, deductions, etc., made by the taxpayer in the return of income.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta stated that the assessing officer has the power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income assessment. Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act is preceded by notice, inquiry and hearing under Section 142(1), (2) and (3), as well as under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Name: Shyam Sunder Strips & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No. : CWP 23675 of 2025
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed orders that disallowed debit from Electronic Credit Ledgers of taxpayers in excess of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time of passing of the said order.
The Division Bench comprising, Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta followed the principles judicial reasoning for blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86-A as enumerated by Gujarat High Court in case of Samay Alloys and thereafter by Delhi High Court in case of Best Corp Science, Kings Security Guard Services, Karuna Rajendra Ringshia as well as Telangana High Court in Laxmi Fine Chem.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another
Case Number: CWP-28440-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) to issue a circular extending the ITR (Income Tax Return) due date for audit cases to 30.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2025-2026.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta were addressing a petition filed by the assessee/petitioner seeking a direction to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing of tax audit reports for a reasonable period from 30.09.2025 and, consequently, to further extend the due date for filing tax returns.
Rajasthan HC
Voluntary GST Cancellation Not Grounds To Freeze Company's Bank Account: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/s Bhilwara Trading Company v Bank Of Baroda
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bank of Baroda to de-freeze the account of the petitioner-company, allowing it to use it freely till finally deciding the company's representation, observing that the bank could not freeze the account merely because the company's GST registration was voluntarily cancelled.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a petition filed by a company trading in goods which were exempted from the Goods and Services Tax, whose application for voluntary cancellation of GST registration was allowed by the concerned department.
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1947/2025
The Rajasthan High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether arrest warrants can be converted to bailable warrants in serious economic offences under the provisions of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Customs, CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax), as well as heinous offences punishable under Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that, “creation of fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoices and thereby passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries and thus evading tax in crores of rupees, which affects the economy of the nation, and the same would certainly fall within the purview of grave economic offences.”
Sikkim HC
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 39 Of 2022
Case Titled: Zydus Healthcare Ltd. (Earlier M/S Zydus Healthcare, Sikkim (Firm)] Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Gangtok
The Sikkim High Court stated that when the reassessment notice itself is illegal, issued without jurisdiction, or beyond the time limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the Court can directly examine the validity of the notice under Article 226, even though an appeal under the Act is otherwise available.
A Single Bench of the Sikkim High Court, comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the challenge goes to the very jurisdiction of reassessment notice under Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Tripura HC
Case Title: R.G. Group vs. UOI & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No.611 of 2025
The Tripura High Court recently held that payment of a penalty under economic duress cannot be treated as a “voluntary” admission of liability, and tax authorities remain legally obligated to pass a final, reasoned order under the Tripura State GST Act, 2017.
The ruling came in the case of R G Group, a Tripura-based supplier of electrical goods, whose consignment was detained in July 2024 by GST enforcement officials over alleged expired E-Way bills and vehicle discrepancies.
Case Title: M/s North East Carrying Corporation Ltd.(NECC) Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 36-37 of 2025
The Tripura High Court has held that where show-cause notices imposing penalty under Section 77 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act) were issued after delay of 9 years, long after the repeal of the TVAT Act after GST Regime, are arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by malafides. The Court further held that the State cannot retain the security deposit taken for VAT registration once the GST regime does not mandate a security deposit for transporters.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha was hearing writ petitions filed by the assessee, challenging multiple show-cause notices and penalty orders issued under Section 77 of the repealed TVAT Act, along with the non-refund of the Rs.12 Lacs. security deposit originally deposited in 2013 at the time of VAT registration.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41366 & 41367 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that variable 'P' under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, refers only to common credit, not total credit, prior to 01.04.2016.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether, for the tax periods April 2012 to March 2014, the variable “P” in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would denote total credit or common credit.
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmiammal Progressive Educational Trust v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2193/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an independent enquiry or verification by the department is mandatory before treating charitable donations as involuntary.
George George K (Vice President) stated that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) treated the donations as not voluntary donation and sustained the addition made by the AO. The FAA has not carried out any independent enquiry or verification to ascertain whether donations are voluntary or not. The findings of the FAA appear to rest on presumptions, surmises, and conjectures, rather than on any concrete material or evidence.
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the FOB (Free On Board) value determined between the parties is protected by privity of contract, and it cannot be modified by a stranger to the contract.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that FOB value is the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”. The FOB value of the individual components declared by the assessee, therefore, could not have been rejected.
Customs | AIFTA Exemption Cannot Be Denied Without Verifying Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT
Case Title: Marvel Silver v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86363 OF 2023
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement) exemption cannot be denied without verifying the certificate of origin.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) noted that there is no allegation, let alone ascertainment, that the 'certificate of origin' corresponding to each of the impugned consignments is not authentic or not issued by the competent authority. There is no reasoning offered for concluding that the description of the impugned goods did not conform to the contents of the certificate or packing lists.
Case Title: M/s Vortex Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50494 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the differential duty paid for provisional release is not a pre-deposit. Hence, refund interest payable only at 6% U/S 27A Customs Act, not 12% U/S 35FF Central Excise Act.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that all those goods were ordered to be released as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, at the assessee's own request for provisional release of the goods. This apparent and admitted fact is sufficient to hold that the amounts in question cannot be considered as an amount deposited under protest. Hence, Section 35FF is held to not be applicable to the given set of circumstances.
Case Title: G Amphray Laboratories v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-III)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87856 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that confiscation, penalty & fine cannot be imposed on IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) demand arising from breach of pre-import condition under Customs Act.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) opined that the IGST demand arose because of the breach of the pre-import condition. Although IGST is payable for such a breach, no confiscation or penalty can be imposed merely on that ground.
Case Title: KDS Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD) New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2009
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without any Section 139C certificate under the Customs Act cannot form the basis of assessment.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the computer/ CPU was not sealed at the time of panchnama and was lying with the investigating agency for 47 days, after which it was first examined and then sealed, which raises questions about the authenticity of the data.
Case Title: M/s Texcomash Export & Sh. N.K. Rajgarhia v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 724 of 2005
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that drawback cannot be denied on the grounds of alleged forgery by a foreign buyer after goods are exported under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995.
The single bench consists of (Judicial Member) opined that any forgery, if revealed during a further investigation being committed by the Russian company vis-a-vis the Landing certificate in the light of Drawback Rules in India, is highly insufficient to deny the claim of drawback, specifically when the goods have crossed Indian territory and to reach to a place outside India.
Case Title: Continental Trading Co. v. Principal Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51966 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that an importer cannot be penalised for misdeclaration merely because other importers declared high prices for similar goods under the Customs Valuation Rules.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the mere fact that another importer had imported identical goods from the same overseas exporter at different prices does not prove that the assessee had mis-declared anything in the Bill of Entry.
Advertisement, Promotional And Management Service Payments Excluded From Customs Valuation: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Triumph Motorcycles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Director General (Adjudication), D.R.I., New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50212 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Advertisement and Promotional Expenses and Management Service Fees (APE and MSF) payments are independent transactions, and cannot be included in the transaction value of imported goods.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by the assessee in India are required to be added to the value of the imported goods, treating the said amount as constituting “condition of sale” of imported goods under section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules, 2007.
Case Title: ACIT v. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
Case Number: ITA No.5403/MUM/2025 (A.Y.2022-23)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted Rs. 4.6 Crore disallowance made under Section 14A Income Tax Act, against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in a high-profile income tax case.
The case was heard by bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member) regarding the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40011 to 40014 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the Non-Obstante Clause in Section 142(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) cannot override the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that section 142(5) does not refer to overriding any particular provision, and hence the non obstante clause has to be examined and given a restricted meaning limited to the context in which it is used.
Case Title: M/s Leakless Gasket India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 55311 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Twaron Para Aramid Pulp is classified as 'textile flock', hence, the importers are liable for a higher customs duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Twaron Para Aramid Pulp imported by the assessee was classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 5601 22 00 or under CTI 5601 30 00.
Commission-Based Services To Foreign Clients As Agent Qualifies As 'Export Of Service': CESTAT
Case title: YKK India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that commission-based services such as sales facilitation and regional support services provided by Indian counterparts to foreign companies qualified as 'export' and not as 'Business Auxiliary Services'.
The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of zippers and parts thereof in India and to neighbouring foreign companies, including YKK Singapore located in Singapore. The Department conducted an audit for FY 2006–07 to 2010–11, which led to two show cause notices—one covering FY 2006–07 to 2010–11 and the other covering FY 2011–12. Consequently, a Service Tax demand totalling Rs. 68,59,980 and CENVAT Credit recovery of Rs. 13,08,503, along with interest and penalties, was confirmed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act.
Case Name: Glenworth Estate Ltd.
Case No. : Service Tax Appeal No. 40031 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside service tax demand on commission paid to foreign agents for sale of black tea, finding that 'essential characteristic' of agricultural produce is retained.
CESTAT Chennai clarified that black tea gets covered by the expression 'in relation to agriculture' appearing in Notification 14/2004-S.T. (as amended) dated September 10, 2004 observes that “Once the black tea is found to be agricultural produce, services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce is covered by the negative list…”
Case Title: Tower Vision India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax-Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60109 of 2022
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the provisions of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, do not extend to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and accordingly set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 4 crores.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that the provision of Chapter V of the Finance Act does not extend to J&K. Once the provisions of the Finance Act are not applicable in the State of J&K, then service tax cannot be demanded by resorting to POPS Rules, which cannot override the statutory provisions.
Case Title: Chennai Citi Centre Holdings (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40364 of 2017
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai on Friday held that a profit-sharing arrangement for managing a mall's parking facility does not amount to leasing of space and therefore is not liable to service tax.
The appeal was against an order of Commissioner of Service Tax that had upheld a service tax demand of over Rs 20 lakh, treating the parking arrangement between CCCHPL and SPIPL as leasing of space and therefore taxable.
Bharat Aluminium Entitled To CENVAT Credit On Mining Services Used For Bauxite Extraction: CESTAT
Case Title: The Commissioner, & Central Excise v. M/s Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55659 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Bharat Aluminium is entitled to CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit on mining services used for bauxite extraction.
Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) agreed with the Principal Commissioner that since mining services were used for the extraction of bauxite from the mines owned by BALCO, and this bauxite was sent to Vendanta for conversion into alumina, which is a basic raw material used in the manufacture of aluminium by BALCO, there is a direct nexus between extraction of bauxite from the mines and the production of aluminium.
Case Name: Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Private Limited
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 42121 of 2016
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid on lease rental on all three counts viz. for constructing factory building on leased land as well as vacant portion of land and on repairs, maintenance and renovation of factory building.
The bench of Mr. Vishal Malani (Member- Central Tax) and MS. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) has ruled on ITC eligibility of GST paid on lease rental by dismissing the view of applicant that as leased land would not be used for factory construction for the whole period of lease, ITC would be admissible pre and post activity of construction. Gujarat AAR observed that “…. land has been given on lease specifically for construction of the factory…..purpose of land for industrial purpose, cannot be changed. Thus, the land being used for industrial construction…and any services specific to land is blocked….”.
Case Title: Navin Fluorine International Limited v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51623 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that samples sent for research and development (R&D) and quality testing are not finished goods, and their dispatch to a laboratory cannot be treated as clandestine removal.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) stated that the assessee cleared samples for testing purposes to its in-house facility at Surat in the State of Gujarat and had not cleared finished goods. It cannot, therefore, be said that the assessee was engaged in clandestine removal of goods.
Case Title: M/s. Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51026 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Oppo Mobiles is eligible for customs exemption on microphones & receivers used in PCBA (Printed Circuit Board Assembly) prior to 06.07.2019.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that by virtue of the amendment Notification dated 06.07.2019, customs duty would also be leviable on microphones and receivers when imported into India, even if they are imported for the manufacture of PCBA of cellular mobile phones.
Case Name: Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 40085/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held Xiaomi India liable for differential customs duties on royalties to Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software under various agreements for importing and selling Xiaomi-branded mobile phones and components.
The Bench comprising of Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Mr. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) examined whether royalty payments were linked to imported goods and thus dutiable, concluded that “Royalties and License Fees paid by Xiaomi India are addable to the assessable value of the impugned goods as per Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the differential duty is payable by Xiaomi India for the extended period”.
Case Name: Tulsyan NEC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case No. : Service Tax Appeal No. 40031 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the denial of service tax credit distributed by the assessee, as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), to its unit. The Tribunal found that although invoices were issued in the name of the Branch Office, such invoices were “received” by the Head Office of the assessee, making it eligible to avail and distribute credit.
The Bench comprising Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Mr. Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member), on a perusal of connected documents such as contractual letters, delivery/performance certificates, debit notes, ledger vouchers, bank payment details and other supporting documents, noted that there was a “lack of nexus” to indicate shell suppliers or circular payments.
Case Title: M/s. Hotel President Planet v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50157 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is payable on free room nights and food discounts received in kind under a lease agreement with a hotel.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) was examining whether the complementary nights extended by the lessee to the lessor, along with the respective food discount, are to be considered as part of the gross value/taxable value.
Customs Duty Payable On Imported Goods Lost In Fire; Exemption Not Available: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Ajanta Soya Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51089 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported goods which are not used for manufacturing due to fire do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 and hence, customs duty is payable on such goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) held that the assessee was liable to pay the customs duty on entire quantity of the Crude Palm Oil which was either lost in the fire accident or was found short along with interest.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 760/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)
CASE TITLED: SANJAY KOTHARI (HUF) VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
On November 17th, 2025 the Bench of Shri Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) of the ITAT Mumbai partly allowed the appeal holding that the disallowance under Section 14A (Expenditure for exempt income) r/w Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual expenditure of ₹69,455 incurred by the assessee, and that the excess refund of ₹1,26,32,970 received on return of capital advance retained its character as a capital receipt and could not be taxed as income.
The assessee had preferred an appeal before ITAT, Mumbai being aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(Appeals), whereby the CIT(A) further affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, observing that the excess refund of advance received from the Karta, Shri Sanjay Kothari (in his individual capacity), as taxable income in the hands of the HUF.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 6680/MUM/2024
CASE TITLED: LOGWIN AIR & OCEAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that once the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is accepted for benchmarking all international transactions, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot cherry-pick only the management fee and assign an Arm's Length Price (ALP) at NIL.
In the case in hand, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ITAT seeking deletion of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on management fees and the consequential enhancement of income, being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1994.
Case Name: Western Geco International Ltd. vs. The Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal NO. 58089 OF 2013
The Principal Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside service tax demand on offshore seismic survey (data acquisition) by Western Geco International Ltd., Gurugram (project office of Western Geco British Virgin Islands).
The Bench comprising of Mr. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) and Ms. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) examined if data acquired offshore and processing at the Mumbai project office would constitute two separate services. The CESTAT thus observed “Data analysis was not a separate service even though the cost of data analysis was indicated in the contract as 4% of the basic price.”
Case Title: M/s GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 51956 of 2014
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee is ineligible for excise duty refund on ambulances, as it is neither a manufacturer nor a buyer under Section 11B(2)(e) Central Excise Act. The bench further noted that the assessee was merely operating the ambulances under a government agreement, which does not make him a manufacturer or buyer.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the assessee is not a manufacturer or a buyer of the Ambulances, the differential duty paid on which the assessee seeks to claim as a refund. The Ambulances are not registered in their names. They are not the owners of the vehicles.
Case Title: M/s Chemspark India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Custom Appeal No. 86827 of 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has set aside the absolute confiscation of imported goods ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that once the goods had already been re-exported prior to the filing of the Revenue appeal, the order for absolute confiscation of goods is not sustainable in law.
The Bench of Member (Judicial) Ajay Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeal). The Bench stated that without taking into account that the re-export of the goods in issue had already taken place prior to the filing of the appeal by Revenue. Once the goods have been re-exported certainly they were not available for confiscation. As per settled position of law that where the goods are no longer available for confiscation, such confiscation cannot be ordered, except where they have been cleared under bond etc. which is not the case herein.
Case Name: Anupama Agarwal vs. DCIT
Case No. : ITA No. 5676/Del/2025
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remitted back the addition of capital gains deduction to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in absence of a remand report despite repeated reminders.
The Bench, comprising Mr. Mahavir Singh (Vice President) on the claim of assessee that income was an exempt income for being a sum received under life insurance policy noted AO's failure to furnish remand report.
Case Title: Sojitz India private limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 87356 of 2019
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has stated that the commission earned for acting as Indenting agent to its foreign group companies qualifies as 'Export of Services', and therefore is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench comprising Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban set aside the ₹2.77 crore service tax demand (along with interest and penalty) confirmed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Thane Rural.
Peanut Butter Similar To Margarine; Not Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 27780 of 2013
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Peanut Butter is similar to Margarine in terms of usage, origin, fat content, etc. and therefore not eligible for excise duty exemption.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) examined whether Peanut Butter could be considered similar to Margarine. If found similar, then it would not be exempt from excise duty; and if not similar, the exemption would apply.
Case Title: DCIT, Circle- 41(3)(1) Mumbai Vs. Deepak Shah
Case No: ITA No. 3870/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that where purchases are conclusively proven to be bogus and the assessee fails to substantiate the genuineness of suppliers, the entire purchase amount must be added to income and the benefit of estimating profit element cannot be applied.
A Bench of Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Accountant Member) was hearing a Revenue appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to 15% on the ground that sales were not doubted. The Bench reversed the partial relief and restored 100% addition in respect of four purchase parties.
GSTAT Drops Proceedings Against Eclat Serum Supplier After DGAP Fails To Trace Gujarat Firm
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Shree Suktam Enterprise
Case Number: NAPA/157/PB/2025
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi recently dropped anti profiteering proceedings against Shree Suktam Enterprise, a Gujarat supplier in the chain of biotech company S R Lifesciences. The tribunal observed that the Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) was unable to trace the firm or obtain evidence to determine whether the benefit of a 10 percent GST rate reduction on the skin care product Eclat Serum 30gm, used in dermatological treatment, had been passed on to consumers.
In an order dated November 12, 2025 delivered by Technical Member A Venu Prasad, the tribunal observed that there was no basis to continue proceedings after multiple attempts to secure records and serve notices failed, resulting in the inability to determine any profiteering liability.
Case Titled: DGAP Vs. Gopal Teknocon Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: NAPA/15/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, has held that when a contractor voluntarily remits the residual input tax credit (ITC) benefit identified by the Directorate General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP) to its principal, no separate anti-profiteering action is required under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
A Bench of GSTAT, Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member) was hearing appeal filed by the Directorate General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP) on the issues: whether the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of ITC or tax‐rate reduction to its recipient in violation of Section 171(1) CGST Act and the Anti-Profiteering Rules; whether DGAP's computation is acceptable.
Revenue Cannot Treat Turnover Mismatch As Duty Evasion Without Examining On Merits: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Gold Seal Engineering Products Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 87141 of 2023
The CESTAT Mumbai has held that when an assessee shows sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal within the statutorily permissible condonable period of 30 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot reject the appeal on limitation without examining the merits.
A Bench of the CESTAT comprising of Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban was hearing the appeal, challenging the order of the Commissioner(Appeal) whereby appeal of the assessee was dismissed as time-barred by 26 days and thereby the automatic confirmation of differential duty demand of ₹2,64,039 along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1 Crore Interest, Penalty On Hindustan Zinc For Reversed CENVAT Credit
Case Detail: Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. The Commissioner
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside disallowance of CENVAT credit as well as interest and penalty worth about Rs. 1 crore for electricity wheeled out to sister concerns as well as to State Electricity Board.
In an order dated November 24, 2025, the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (Principal Bench) and Smt. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) set aside six orders, notices creating excise duty demand on input and input services used in Captive Power Plant for generation of electricity. As for electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, the CESTAT from order passed by the Commissioner inferred that CENVAT credit had been reversed on monthly basis prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.
No Service Tax On Income Received From Joint Venture: CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹5.72 Crore Demand
Case Title: M/s. Rahee Infratech Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76709 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an assessee's/partner's share of income from a joint venture is not consideration for any taxable service and therefore not liable to Service Tax.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the activities undertaken by a partner/co-venturer for the mutual benefit of the partnership/joint venture cannot be regarded as a service rendered by one person to another for consideration and therefore cannot be taxed.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
DGFT Issues Guidelines On Refunds & ITC For Exports Affected By Erstwhile CGST Rule 96(10)
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has issued a policy circular regarding refund claim or Input Tax Credit by affected exporters, where eligible as well as on redemption of Advance Authorisations impacted by the erstwhile Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Rule 96(10) provided that a person cannot claim refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on export of goods or services if exporter had availed benefit of specified exemption notifications under certain input benefits or exemptions Schemes on inward supplies (like under Advance Authorisation, Export Promotion Capital Goods, Export Oriented Unit schemes) and simultaneously claimed an IGST refund on the final exported product.
GSTN Issues Advisory On How To Add Valid Bank Account Details On GST Portal
The Goods and Services Network (GSTN) has issued advisory on furnishing bank account details to avoid suspension of their GST Registration and disruption of business activities. As changes with respect to Rule 10A will be implemented on the GST Portal soon, GSTN clarified that taxpayers who have not yet furnished the bank account details till date to do so at the earliest.
As per Rule 10A, taxpayers are required to furnish valid bank account details within a period of 30 days from the date of grant of GST registration or before furnishing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both in Form GSTR-01 or using Invoice Furnishing Facility (IFF), whichever is earlier.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27 October 2025, clarifying the assignment of “proper officers” for issuing show cause notices (SCNs) and passing orders under Sections 74A, 75(2) and 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Board noted that until now, no specific officers had been designated for;
tax determination under Section 74A,
re-assessment under Section 75(2) where charges of fraud are not upheld in appeal,
penalty-only proceedings under Section 122,
and issuance of DRC-01A pre-notice intimation under Rule 142(1A).
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has called for information on Non-Tariff Measures and certification requirements to be submitted within 7 days of issuance of this Trade Notice through an online form.
To facilitate easy access to export credit, cross-border factoring support, the Export Promotion Mission (EPM) was announced in the Union Budget 2025-26.
Tamil Nadu Govt Waives E-Way Bill Requirement For Mahindra & Mahindra's Demo Cars With Trade Plate
The Government of Tamil Nadu has waived the requirement for generating E-way Bill for vehicles sent by Mahindra & Mahindra for road testing.
Mahindra & Mahindra in a representation sought for waiving off requirement of E-way bill for motor vehicles for road testing under Rule 138A (5) of MGST Rules, 2017.
The CBI has arrested a lawyer as well as a judicial member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur for allegedly indulging in corrupt practices.
As per the agency's post on X, the agency has busted a "criminal network" stated to involve an advocate as well as a judicial member of ITAT, Jaipur, an assistant registrar of the tribunal, and other unknown public servants and private persons for "indulging in corrupt practices" in connection with "settling appeals in ITAT bench, Jaipur" in favour of a party in "lieu of bribe".