SUPREME COURTCentral Excise Exemption For Cotton Fabrics Not Available If Any Interlinked Process Uses Power : Supreme CourtCause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers cannot claim central excise duty exemption for processed cotton fabrics if power is used at any stage...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.
The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers cannot claim central excise duty exemption for processed cotton fabrics if power is used at any stage of the manufacturing chain, even when the work is carried out through separate units. The Court restored a duty and penalty demand that had been set aside by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
To claim excise duty exemption for 'cotton fabrics' processed without the aid of power or steam, the manufacturing stages must be completely independent; if the final product cannot emerge without each interlinked process, including those involving power, the exemption cannot be availed.
Case Title: KULDIPAK RAJESH PRASHAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case no.: W.P.(C) No. 1140/2025
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a petition filed by a person suffering visual impairment seeking that the government revive its GST Concession scheme for the purchase of cars by persons with orthopaedic disability and extend it to all Persons with Disabilities, irrespective of the nature of their disability.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, who argued that the Union has taken different stands before different High Courts, which has resulted in conflicting opinions on the government's now-discontinued scheme. The counsel also informed the Court that the scheme existed in one form or another since 1999 but came to be withdrawn in 2025.
Case : The State of Karnataka v Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish
In a significant judgment that will have wide ramifications for hostel and paying guest (PG) accommodation sectors, the Supreme Court held that the exemption from Goods and Services Tax (GST) available for renting residential dwellings continues to apply even when the lessee sub-leases the premises to provide hostel or PG accommodation. The Court ruled that the exemption under Entry 13 of the GST Exemption Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.06.2017 does not require the lessee to personally use the property as a residence, so long as the ultimate use of the premises is residential in nature.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan delivered the ruling while deciding a dispute concerning a four-storeyed residential building with 42 rooms in Karnataka. The building's owner had leased it to M/s DTwelve Spaces Private Limited, a company operating as an aggregator providing long-term hostel accommodation to students and working women. The tax authorities took the view that GST at 18 percent was payable on the rental transaction because the lessee was a commercial entity and did not itself occupy the premises as a residence. Both the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) upheld this interpretation. However, the Karnataka High Court set aside the rulings of AAAR and AAR, holding that the GST exemption will apply. Challenging the High Court's judgment ,the revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case title: M/S Anish Transport Company v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 324 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that evasion of tax cannot be attributed to the transporter when consignor accepts error in loading goods.
Certain goods were intercepted in transit from Dehradun to Delhi. After notices were issued to the cosigner/ consignee, the goods were released in their favour. Subsequently, an order alleging intention to evade tax under Section 129 of the GST Act was passed against the petitioner who was merely a transporter of the goods. Appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Imran Humanyun Chandiwala Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case no.: Writ Petition: 12921 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot override or ignore the findings of the Customs Settlement Commission while taking administrative action. The Court ruled that once the Commission accepts the disclosure, settles duty liability and grants immunity under Section 127H of the Customs Act, its order becomes final and conclusive under Section 127J, and no other authority can indirectly reopen the customs issue.
A bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar while hearing the writ petition preferred by the purchaser, restored the registration of a Nissan petrol car purchased by Mumbai businessman, whose registration had been cancelled by the RTO on the ground that the vehicle was originally imported using forged customs documents.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3587 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Union Government's order denying India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. a rebate of ₹3.26 crore towards National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) paid on exported motorcycles, holding that the authority failed to examine the core statutory requirements under the Central Excise Rules.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna remanded the matter to the Central Government (Revisionary Authority) to reconsider Yamaha's claim afresh and pass a reasoned order within six months.
Case Title: M/s Unique Enterprises Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2021
The Bombay High Court has set aside the SVLDRS-3 Form issued to M/s Unique Enterprises, holding that the case should have been assessed under the “Litigation” category of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and not under the “Arrears” category. The Court ruled that the duty demand in the case had not attained finality, and therefore the assessee was entitled to 70% relief under Section 124(1)(a) of the Scheme.
A Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna while hearing a writ petition seeking quashing and setting aside of form SVLDS-3 issued to the assessee under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, stated that the Petitioner's case would fall under the ambit of Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance Act, and Petitioner would be legally entitled to relief to the extent of 70% of the tax dues/duty demand.
Nescafé Premix Is 'Instant Coffee', Attracts Lower Sales Tax Rate: Bombay High Court
Case Name: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra vs. Nestle India
Case No. : Sales Tax Reference NO. 24 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court in a matter concerning classification of Nescafé Premix and if it was exigible to sales tax at the rate of 8% or 16%, has held that a premix resulting in 'Coffee and Instant drinks' would be classifiable as such, attracting lower rate of tax. (8% not 16%).
In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna re-iterated the cardinal principle of taxation in the context of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 that specific entries in a tax schedule should prevail over general entries. On the classification of Nescafé Premix under by applying the common parlance test the High Court ruled that Nescafé Premix marketed, traded as such had created a consumer perception of 'Instant coffee'.
Case Title: Accost Media LLP Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition(L) No. 35160 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act begins when the assessee receives the ITAT order, and not merely from the date on which the order is passed. The Court ruled that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had completely misdirected itself in rejecting a rectification plea by Accost Media LLP as time-barred.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar delivered the ruling while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee Accost Media Ltd., challenging the order of the ITAT refusing to entertain a rectification application.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs. Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, Nagpur
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 2010 in Reference Application No. 68 of 2004
In a significant ruling on product classification under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Bombay High Court has held that canned pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup cannot be treated as “fresh fruits” for the purpose of Entry A-23 of the Schedule to the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna answered the sales tax reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee Sudha Instant Soft Drinks & Essences, Nagpur, thereby overturning the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's view.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Saraf v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WPO/646/2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless incriminating material relating to the assessee is found during a search and both the assessing officers (the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person) record the necessary satisfaction.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any incriminating material had been found against the assessee in the search and seizure operation.
Delhi HC
Case Detail: South East Asia Company vs. Superintendent, CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17469/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of a consolidated appeal in a matter where a 'common and single' order was issued, although the demand pertained to multiple financial years.
In an order dated November 18, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain allowed the Petitioner to take recourse to a single consolidated appeal against consolidated GST demands raised via one order while stating that whether Section 74 was correctly invoked was a matter for appeal.
Case Title: Vaneeta Impex Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 15169/2025 & CM APPL.62228/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that when a taxpayer has already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for the same disputed tax amount before the State GST Appellate Authority, the Central GST authorities cannot insist on another separate pre-deposit for the same amount while filing a second appeal.
The Bench stated that the law does not permit duplication of pre-deposit for the same tax demand, and therefore the taxpayer should be allowed to file an appeal without paying again.
Case title: MS Jamil Trading Co Thrg Proprietor Mr Jamil Ahmed v. Union Of India Thrg The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10513/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Authorities for issuing a “strange” personal hearing notice to an assessee, which said that the assessee need not attend the hearing as the notice is issued only for the purpose of uploading final order.
“The personal hearing notice is also quite strange to say the least that no personal hearing was granted before the Commissioner Appeals but a hearing was fixed for uploading of the order. Such a practice is inexplicable and deserves to be re-looked at as no useful purpose is served by giving a personal hearing for the purpose of uploading an order,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said.
Case title: Monish Kansal Through Spa Ritik Agnihotri v. Commissioner Of Custom & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14621/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the high-value Rolex watch of a NRI, citing Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017). In the said judgment, the top court had held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The Petitioner being a permanent U.S. resident, this matter would be covered clearly by the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani.”
Case title: Monish Mohammed v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2376/2024
The Delhi High Court recently permitted a labourer, working in the middle-east, to redeem gold bars confiscated by the Customs Department, after a four-year delay.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar took note of the Petitioner's financial status, which purportedly prevented him from paying the redemption fine in time.
Case title: Sanchit Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs (and connected matter)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10380/2025 (and connected matter)
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs on two Petitioners who falsely claimed that their old gold jewellery was seized by the Customs Department upon their arrival from Dubai.
On production of the gold items before it, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “it is clear that the gold items are not used gold jewellery of the Petitioners, and the same are absolutely brand new jewellery, which is stated to have been purchased by the Petitioners in Dubai and were being brought to India.”
Case title: Javed Ali Gouse v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15765/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot make a passenger or his lawyer sign an undertaking for waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, when they appear for appraisement of seized articles.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with an NRI's plea, whose gold chain was seized by the Customs on his arrival from Saudi Arabia.
Case title: M/S Eves Fashion v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17991/2025
In a rare instance of relief, the Delhi High Court has directed the GST Department to restore the registration of a trader, cancelled over three years ago, citing the medical issues and dispute with the Chartered Accountant which prevented it from acting earlier.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Mini Pushkarna observed, “The present case presents a peculiar set of facts, where the Petitioner has had medical reasons and a dispute with his Chartered accountant, which led to GST Registration being cancelled. Although under ordinary circumstances, the Court is not inclined to condone delay, the present case indicates that the Petitioner is a bona fide trader who intends to continue his business and requires his GST Registration to be restored for the said purpose.”
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi vs. TC Global India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SERTA20/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that TC Global, operating as an App-based platform offering admission support solutions like promotional and marketing services, advertisements, roadshows, fairs, counselling to foreign universities, against payment in foreign exchange would qualify as 'Export of Service' instead of 'Intermediary Service'.
In a judgment dated November 28, 2025, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar affirmed CESTAT Delhi order that held Respondent not liable to service tax as an 'intermediary' in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. On the aspect that activities were promotional or marketing and not arranging admissions as 'agent' the High Court explained how a consistent legal position had been set by the decisions of Global Opportunities, Ernst &Young Limited, K.C. Overseas wherein Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge by Department.
Case title: Roovi v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9063/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady but the gold is claimed by three ladies. The ownership of these bangles would have to be determined. These issues cannot be gone into in a Writ petition as these are disputed questions of fact.”
Case title: Nazarmammet Nuryyyalev v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13936/2023
The Delhi High Court has condoned the delay of three years by a Turkmenistanian national in redeeming his gold jewellery from the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar granted the relief noting that “the Petitioner had visited India for medical treatment of his wife and the gold jewellery was for payment of the same, as also the fact that the Petitioner is not a habitual offender”.
Case Name: Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
Case No. : W.P.(C) 12619/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition pertaining to service of notice through speed post where delivery reports could not be found, sets aside ex-parte demand order creating a demand to the tune of Rs. 1 crore.
In an order dated November 24, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined whether notices for personal hearing (Jan–Mar 2024) were properly served. On the aspect of service of notice, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority since Petitioner was 'not heard' and amount deposited was 'higher' than pre-deposit amount.
Case title: Manpar Exim INC v. Additional Director, DGGI And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18204/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that pre-SCN Consultative Notice prima facie serves no purpose in large-scale GST fraud cases involving multiple entities and a complex maze of transactions.
Pre-SCN consultation was mandatory under Rule 142 (1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It prescribed that a proper officer shall, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer.
Case title: Neeraj Guglani v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2579/2024
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay by an assessee in filing his Income Tax Return, citing his health condition as 'genuine hardship' under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “petitioner has highlighted the medical reasons, which prevented him from filing the ITR timely. The medical condition do indicate seriousness, which required surgery for cervical OPLL. Presumption can surely be drawn that the medical condition has prevented the filing of ITR within time.”
Case title: M/S A V Metals Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner CGST & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18230/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST Department to exercise caution when mentioning financial year, other relevant dates in the show cause notices and orders issued by it to a taxpayer.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar sounded the note of caution after coming across a case where the authority inadvertently mentioned the due date for filing reply to the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner as 28th August, 2025, instead of 28th August, 2024.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 353/2025 + ITA 354/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in the absence of any physical presence, virtual services rendered by a foreign law firm in India would not constitute taxable service under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Article 5(6) of the DTAA only contemplates rendering of services by employees present within the country. If that be so, it is not for this Court to analyse the status or merits of a virtual service permanent establishment which does not find mention either in the DTAA or in the domestic Act. As such, the contention of the Revenue that a virtual service permanent establishment of the assessee has been established for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 cannot be accepted.”
Case title: Dhruv Mittal v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12774/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for repeatedly delaying implementation of its orders for release of articles seized from passengers arriving from abroad.
Calling out the authority's “delaying tactics”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar warned of “stringent action” along with imposition of costs on errant officials.
Case title: Amandeep Singh Proprietor, Guru Kripa Enterprises v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 10 (1)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17047/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with income reassessment action initiated by the tax authorities merely on the ground that two successive notices under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were issued to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “as the fresh notice dated 13.06.2025 was issued with the same contents, the previous notice automatically becomes infructuous. Thus, no jurisdictional issue arises.”
Case title: Akasaki Technology (P) Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 241/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals cannot remand assessment back to the Assessing Officer, unless it decides the jurisdictional validity of AO's order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Section 144 empowers the deals with the assessment of a taxpayer that is carried out by the Assessing Officer (AO) as per his best judgement and based on all relevant information gathered.
Gujarat HC
Case title: SANDHYA MAULIK PATEL v/s ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case no.: C/SCA/ 4162/2023
The Gujarat High Court has observed that information available in public domain or any unrelated information seized from the searched person without a connection to the assessee is not enough to be the basis of issuing a show cause notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted of Land Broker & Financer Group, Ahmedabad on 15.10.2019, wherein digital data/images from the mobile phone of one Dhaval Teli were acquired, based on which notices under Section 153C of the Act were issued to the petitioners on 13.10.2021.
Case title: GATEWAY EXIM v/s STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS.
Case no.: R/SCA/7183/2025
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (December 3) quashed order issued to entity for failing to intimate about personal hearing, which had claimed that after notice of GST DRC-01 was issued to it, the authority did not intimate the date and time of personal hearing which was against principles of natural justice.
In doing so the court said while issuing DRC-01 it would not be mandatory to incorporate the date and time of personal hearing; however once subsequent proceedings progress, but before the final order is passed, the assessee must be intimated the date and time of personal hearing.
Case title: RAO TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Case no.: C/SCA /2650/2025
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 148 of Income Tax Act based on mere change of opinion without concrete material is not justified, when the return has been threadbare examined during initial assessment and approved without failure of disclosure.
It noted that as per the AO's own findings he was unsure about the actual escaped income which he had said will be finalized only on completion of proceedings, which the court termed as "vague observations".
Case Detail: PFIZER Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 143 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court has allowed writ petition by Pfizer, a pharmaceutical major against the Value Added Tax (VAT) Tribunal order that expressly barred the consideration of any additional Form-F.
In a judgment dated November 20, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Pranav Trivedi and Justice A.S. Supehia noted the 11-year pendency in litigation in relation to production of Form-F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In this vein, the High Court deliberated on piecemeal production of Form-F for interstate branch transfers. It held the additional Form-F valued at ₹16 crores in terms of VAT Tribunal order as maintainable since Petitioner stated that future claims would be waived by it.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Cause-Title: Kehar Singh Ors vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors, 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the 2017 Rules, ruling that the regulatory framework applies not only to manufacturers but also to brick dealers, rejecting challenges raised by multiple petitioners.
The High Court rejected the plea that GST registration obviated the licensing requirement under the Brick Kiln Act, stating, “GST registration pertains to fiscal compliance… the Brick Kiln Act is a regulatory statute aimed at environmental protection and land use control. Compliance with one statute does not dispense with mandatory requirements of another.”
GST Demand Cannot Exceed Amount Mentioned In Show Cause Notice: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: M/s Ukas Goods Carrier vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case No.: WP (C) No. 1961/2021
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a tax demand under GST cannot exceed the amount mentioned in the show cause notice and that doing so violates basic principles of fairness.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar set aside a GST demand raised against a goods transport agency (GTA), after finding that the final demand was much higher than what was proposed in the original notice.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Mr. Yash v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2021 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that the search conducted at Actor Yash's residence makes him a 'searched person' under the Income Tax Act, as documents were seized from him, during the search and a panchanama was drawn. Hence, the order under Section 153C of the Act, which applies to persons other than the one originally searched, is without jurisdiction.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar opined that the actor was searched and in the light of the undisputed fact that his premises was searched and documents seized from him and a panchanama was drawn, the sole/unmistakable conclusion/inference that can be arrived at from the material on record is that the actor was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person as contemplated under Section 153C of the I.T. Act.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Save A Family Plan (India) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 81 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a tribunal cannot travel beyond the grounds not cited by the commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that only one reason was highlighted by the Commissioner for exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal having found the said reason as not a valid one, the Tribunal should have stopped there rather than making further observations as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the extension of the benefits under Section 11 of the Act through the assessment order.
Case Title: M/s K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24617 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that the department cannot proceed against a recipient for ITC mismatch without first initiating proceedings against the supplier.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that no proceedings had been initiated against the suppliers before the issuance of notice under Section 73 of the CSGT Act. This amounts to the failure on the part of the department in following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 42.
Case Title: M/s Escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.18245 OF 2008
The Kerala High Court has held that an Ayurvedic Treatment centre is to be classified as a 'hospital' and not 'hotel', and therefore, luxury tax cannot be imposed.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the Ayurvedic Treatment Centre admits patients undergoing prescribed Ayurvedic treatment for a minimum duration, without offering hotel amenities, it qualifies as a hospital and luxury tax is not liable under the Luxury Tax Act.
Case Title: P.P. Paul v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 26259 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that payments made under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) are valid if they fall within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. found that SVLDRS proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and hence covered under Supreme Court's suo moto extension orders.
Case Title: P.T. Vincent v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43431 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that once the plinth area of a building increases due to additional construction, a fresh building tax assessment must be carried out under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., after examining the documents produced by the assessee, stated that the assessee had carried out additional constructions after the initial construction, which was subjected to assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Case Title: M/S National Timbers v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15946 OF 2011
The Kerala High Court has held that a lower conversion factor is applicable for timber imports made before 11.05.2012.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined the issue regarding the refund of additional customs duty paid for the import of timber from Myanmar and other foreign countries.
Case Title: Sri. Shimwas Hussain v. The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33519 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the classification of 'Nata de Coco' is a factual matter that must be decided by the adjudicating authority through statutory proceedings and not by the writ court.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that since it is a statutory proceeding contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, which should be followed from the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act, the question as to be sustainability of the classification cannot be considered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This is because the adjudication of the dispute involved, being a factual aspect, it has to be examined by the competent authorities, and this Court cannot conduct a parallel enquiry in connection with the same.
Case Title: Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27452 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that income derived from public religious/charitable trusts is not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that income derived from properties belonging to the deity or temple does not become the income of the administrative body merely because the body manages the institution. The administrative body must independently establish that the income claimed is its own statutory income in order to attract the exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
Interest On Delayed Agricultural Income Tax Not Deductible U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Aspinwall and Company Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.5 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court has held that interest on delayed agricultural income tax is not deductible under Section 37 Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the interest paid on account of the delayed payment of Agricultural Income Tax is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Thekkee Cherupillil Sarada v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43816 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an Income Tax Appeal cannot be rejected solely for the assessee's non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that none of the provisions in Section 250 of the Income Tax Act permit the appellate authority to reject the appeal on the ground of non-appearance of the assessee/appellant, without going into the merits of the case.
Madras HC
Case Title: Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016
The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for IPLC services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and whether the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of a payment made to a foreign-based company.
Case Title: M/s. Devaraj & Others v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TCA Nos. 319 of 2016 and 538 of 2021
The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal cannot re-adjudicate issues or modify its original order under the guise of rectification.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope and ambit of rectification/review could be only within the contours provided under the provision. When the provision only allows for rectification for any errors apparent on the face of the record, the mistake should be discernible on the face of the record without requiring any elaborate enquiry or reasoning. In the garb of rectification, the issue cannot be re-adjudicated, and a fresh order cannot be passed effacing the original order, which is clearly impermissible.
Case Name: MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI
The Madras High Court has quashed Show Cause Notices issued to Apollo Tyres Limited and MRF Limited alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the composite supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (TFF) since tax difference was paid voluntarily.
In twin judgments dated November 28,2025, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy examined if Show Cause Notice had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 74 to hold that payment deferred due to confusion prevailing confusion in the industry regarding tax treatment of TFF is not attributable to tax evasion.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 20476 of 2018
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bunker supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel to 'cable ship ASEAN explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT).
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel 'Cable Ship ASEAN Explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT), or whether such supplies are liable to Central Excise duty as the vessel cannot be considered as a 'foreign-going vessel' under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Detail: Indian Tobacco Traders vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax Guntur - GST
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 30390 of 2018
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on Indian Tobacco Traders under the heading Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service, as tobacco leaves were transported through individual truck owners.
In an order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) clarified that even if a person had provided Goods Transport Service but has not issued the consignment note, Service Tax from that person cannot be recovered under the category of GTA. The CESTAT rejected the contention of the Service Tax Department that consignment notes may be, in any form like chit, bill even weighing slip given to the truck owner may be treated as consignment note.
No Service Tax On Cost Allocation For Pet-Care Products Of Mars International: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title: M/s Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Tax, Hyderabad - II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 22990 of 2014
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mars International is not liable to service tax on cost allocations for developing pet-care products. The bench further opined that the arrangement with the group companies did not involve a service provider-service recipient relationship, and therefore, the service is not taxable.
ANGAD PRASAD (Judicial Member) and A.K. JYOTISHI (Technical Member) found that the Mars International/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of pet care products or acquires products from co-manufacture. The companies under the agreement are group companies; these companies are doing research for developing the pet care products in-house. Therefore, the services are not taxable under Section 65 (105) (za) of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s Omaxe Buildhome Limited vs. Commissioner of GST Delhi-East
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 50776 of 2018
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeal against the order of Commissioner(appeals) filed by the assessee M/s Omaxe Buildhome Ltd., by stating that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because the appellant had supressed the material facts and had contravened to provsions of the Finance Act. Thereby, setting aside the demand of service tax raised on car parking charges.
Case Title: BILT Graphics Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85636 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and later discharged at Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” for the purpose of including it in the transaction value for levy of Central Excise duty.
A Division Bench of C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the demand raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with equal penalty under Section 11AC.
Case Title: Rajni Arvind Birla v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No. 930/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an assessment order passed without awaiting the DVD (Departmental Valuation Officer) report violates Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) opined that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B, without awaiting the DVO's report, when such a report was statutorily awaited, is not sustainable.
24K Oval Pendants Qualify As Gold Jewellery, Eligible For Duty Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Detail: R.K. Digital Solutions vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 30206 of 2024
The Hyderabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a matter concerning import of oval shaped gold pendants, has favoured classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7113 1910 as 'articles of jewellery' instead of CTH 7108 1300 as 'semi-manufactured gold'
In a recent order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), examined the two competing tariff headings CTH 7108 (unwrought/semi-manufactured gold) and CTH 7113 (articles of jewellery). The CESTAT going by the General Rules of Interpretation held that oval shaped pendants with hook could be worn on the body as pendant and thus, qualified as “articles of jewellery”.
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta vs. Income Tax Officer
Case No: ITA No. 4199/MUM/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has set aside a ₹10.84 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of actress Preity G. Zinta, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
A Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), while hearing the appeal of Preity G. Zinta against an addition under Section 68, observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the documents proving the genuineness of loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
Case Detail: Sri Ram Jari Industries
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of imitation zari thread or yarn made from metallised polyester or plastic film, widely used in sarees or garments in place of real gold or silver zari thread would attract GST at 5%.
In a ruling dated November 29, 2025 Gujarat AAR comprising Shri. Vishal Malani (Memmer- Central Tax) and Smt. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) perused the decision of the 52nd GST Council Meeting regarding imitation zari thread or yarn made from metallised polyester film /plastic film, relevant tariff entry HSN 5605, Sl. No. 218AA inserted vide Notification No. 09/2023 dated July 26, 2023. Therefore, the Members concluded that metallic zari thread or yarn made from metallized polyester/plastic film would merit classification under HSN 56050020 attracting 5% GST, aligning with GST Council clarifications and notifications.
No Input-Tax Credit On IGST Paid Through Pre-Consultation Letter Or TR-6 Challan: Gujarat AAR
Case Detail: Hansaben Jayantibhai Patel
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 27,14,559 paid towards differential IGST demand for mold-cleaning machine import from China through pre‑consultation letter/TR‑6 challan.
In a ruling dated November 24, 2025 Gujarat AAR comprising Shri. Vishal Malani (Memmer- Central Tax) and Smt. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) ruled on twin aspects relating to eligibility to avail ITC on the basis of pre-consultation letter and limitation in terms of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The AAR held that payment of differential duty online through the E-payment option on the basis of Pre-consultation letter issued prior to a Show Cause Notice or TR-6 challan would not constitute as documents evidencing payment of tax under the Customs and hence were not valid duty‑paying documents.
Case Title: M/s. Kalmar India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal Nos. 40368 to 40370 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that delay by the refund authority in sanctioning a refund claim is 'sufficient cause' for excluding limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that ……The practical incapacity of the Refund-Sanctioning Officer to render an effective, reasoned decision within a reasonable time rendered that remedy ineffectual for timely redress. The prolonged inaction on the part of the Department constitutes a “sufficient cause” for excluding the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Non-Monetary Benefits From Manufacturer “Promotional” In Nature, Taxable Under GST: Tamil Nadu AAR
Advance Ruling No.: 46/ARA/2025
The Tamil Nadu Bench of Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), comprising C. Thiyagarajan (CGST Member) and B. Suseel Kumar (SGST Member), has held that non-monetary benefits such as gifts, perquisites, and tour packages received by a dealer from a manufacturer amount to consideration for “support services” and are exigible to Goods and Services Tax (GST).
A wholesale and retail paint dealer, approached the AAR seeking clarity on the GST implications of non-monetary benefits provided by paint manufacturers. The benefits ranging from free gifts to foreign tour packages for both the distributor and its painter-customers were subjected to 10% TDS under Section 194R of the Income Tax Act, and the applicant had raised tax invoices treating these benefits as supply.
Case Title: Paul Foskey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-V
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85569 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entity Marriott Hong Kong qualify as export of services, and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench of Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban allowed three connected appeals filed by Marriott India, and set aside the entire service tax demand, penalties, and interest confirmed by the Commissioner through Order-in-Original.
Paddy Is An Agricultural Produce, No GST Leviable On Rent Received For Its Storage: Tamil Nadu AAR
The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that rent received for letting out a godown to store paddy does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST), as paddy qualifies as an agricultural produce.
The ruling was passed on an advance ruling application filed by M/s Lena Modern Rice Mill, owned by Lakshmanan Sivalingam, which had rented out its premises for use as a godown to store paddy. The tenant had refused to pay GST on the rent, prompting the applicant to seek clarity on whether GST was payable on such rental income.
Case Title: M/s. Zuari Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise
Case Number: Central Excise Appeal No. 20591 of 2022
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that manufacturing and packaging of cement are works service contracts, not civil construction activities, and therefore CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit cannot be denied.
Regarding the allegation of ineligible CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on lease premium, the bench consists of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) found that since the disputed services were ultimately meant for accomplishing the objective of providing the output service, it cannot be said that since the phrase 'setting up' was specifically excluded in the inclusive part of definition of input service, the benefit of CENVAT credit should be denied.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Finance Ministry Tables Bill To Hike Excise On Tobacco, Introduces New Cess On Pan Masala
On December 1, 2025, the finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman introduced the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the Health Security and National Security Cess Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha, which will replace the existing Compensation Cess.
The Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks “to give the government the fiscal space to increase the rate of central excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products so as to protect tax incidence”.
The Union Government on Wednesday introduced the Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha to bring the State GST law in line with amendments made under Sections 121 to 134 of the Finance Act, 2025 and decisions of the 56th GST Council.
The Bill proposes significant changes relating to input tax credit, distribution of credit, return filing, appeal pre-deposit, treatment of credit notes and, notably, introduction of a track-and-trace mechanism with unique identification marking for specified goods.
The Central Government in response to details of financial support and credit facilitation for the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) has clarified that effective April 01, 2025, the Ministry of MSME has expanded collateral-free financing by enhancing CGS coverage up to Rs. 10 crores with reduced guarantee fees.
Under the credit-linked subsidy schemes, tabulated statistics indicated that Government has in the last three financial years i.e FY 2022-23 to FY 2024-25 assisted 2.34 lakh units with Rs. 7,918 crores subsidy disbursed.
DGFT Allows Personal Carriage Of Gems & Jewellery Parcels Through Ahmedabad Airport Under FTP 2023
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, has amended Paragraphs 4.87(a) and 4.88 of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP) 2023 under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2023. The amendment now allows import and export of gems and jewellery parcels for personal carriage through Ahmedabad Airport, in addition to the previously listed international airports such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Kochi, Coimbatore, Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Jaipur.
The procedure for clearance remains unchanged and will continue to follow normal Customs regulations and banking norms.
Centre Defends GST Hike On Coal, Says It Cuts Power Generation Cost By 17–18 Paise/Unit
The Centre in response to estimated impact of GST reforms on domestic coal producers and import substitution, has clarified that by increasing GST rate on coal from 5% to 18%, the inverted duty structure has been corrected.
“GST has rationalized the tax burden across various coal grades, as the previous GST regime led to higher effective tax incidence on low grade coal and low priced coal.”
The Centre in response to tax treatment of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF), has clarified that the GST Council, in which the states are also represented, has not made any recommendation for inclusion of ATF under GST.
As for taxation on ATF, the Centre put forth that issue of high Value Added Tax (VAT) levy on ATF ranging from 0% to 29% in some States and Union Territories was addressed, resulting in reduction of VAT by 21 States and Union Territories. The Centre pointed out that under the Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS) – UDAN the central excise duty is only 2% for flights as opposed to 11% central excise duty on ATF together with different rates of VAT.
The Centre on Tuesday in response to impact of escalation in Tariffs imposed by the United States of America has clarified that it is countering through trade negotiations, export promotion schemes, credit support, RBI relief, and FTA diversification.
As immediate steps, the following Trade relief measures had been introduced to provide priority support for sectors hit by tariffs including textiles, leather, gems & jewellery, engineering, marine.
The Union Minister for Cooperation, has told the Lok Sabha that the Government received requests to exempt goods made by cooperative societies from GST. However, decisions on GST exemptions are taken by the GST Council, which is a constitutional body.
Despite this, the Minister said that the Central Government has already given many tax benefits to cooperatives to improve their financial strength and business growth.
Consumer Affairs Ministry Mandates Display Of Retail Sale Price On All Pan Masala Packs From Feb 1st
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has mandated for all pan masala packs of every size and weight to display the Retail Sale Price (RSP) from February 01, 2026.
The move facilitates the effective implementation of RSP-based GST levy on pan masala, enabling 'seamless enforcement of GST Council decisions', 'proper tax assessment' and 'revenue collection' across all pack sizes, including the smallest units.
The Centre has clarified on the status of applications under the Scheme to Promote Manufacturing of Electric Passenger Cars (SPMEPC) that non-participation of Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) was contingent on finalization of India–EU FTA negotiations.
The Centre referred to a stakeholder meeting with automobile OEMs to state that no applications before the deadline of October 21 was attributable to FTA uncertainty, supply chain restrictions, and high investment thresholds. The Centre also enlisted feedback from stakeholder consultation held with the OEMs for discussing the way forward and industry queries.
Centre Rationalises Drone Taxation: Uniform 5% GST, IGST & Customs Duty Relief For Flight Simulators
The Union Government has informed the Lok Sabha that drones across all categories will now attract a uniform 5% GST, following the recommendations of the 56th GST Council Meeting held on 03.09.2025, aimed at removing classification disputes and promoting ease of doing business in the aviation and emerging-technology sectors.
Replying to Unstarred Question No. 708, the Minister of State for Civil Aviatio, stated that the GST Council's decision rationalises the earlier structure under which drones attracted multiple GST slabs 5%, 18% and 28%, often leading to interpretational uncertainty and higher compliance burden. The new flat 5% rate is expected to boost drone affordability and adoption across industries.
Central Govt Ensuring GST Rate Cuts Are Passed On To Consumers: Finance Ministry Tells Lok Sabha
The Ministry of Finance has informed the Lok Sabha that, where several GST rates were rationalised, the Central Government has put in place a coordinated tax-administration mechanism to ensure that businesses actually pass on the GST rate-cut benefits to consumers.
The Finance Ministry stated that the CBIC has been monitoring prices of key GST-covered goods, including packaged foods and pharmaceuticals, comparing prices pre- and post-22 September 2025, when the revised rates took effect.
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has informed that from November-2025 tax period onwards, value of supplies auto-populated in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B from the returns/forms mentioned above, shall be made non-editable.
In an advisory dated December 05, 2025, GSTN stated that in case any modification/amendment is required in the auto-populated values of Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B, then the same can be done through GSTR-1A for the same tax period.