SUPREME COURTIncome Tax | Foreign Companies' Head Office Expenses For Indian Business Subject To Deduction Limit Under S. 44C : Supreme CourtCause Title: DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. (and connected case)In a set-back to foreign companies doing business operations in India, the Supreme Court on Monday (December 15) held that all head...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. (and connected case)
In a set-back to foreign companies doing business operations in India, the Supreme Court on Monday (December 15) held that all head office expenditure incurred by them outside India, whether common or exclusively for their Indian business operations, must be subjected to the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby ruling out any claim for full deduction.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, which had upheld the grant of full deduction for “head office expenditure” incurred by the respondent non-resident assessees outside India in relation to their business operations in India.
Case Title – Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-III N.D.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2014
The Supreme Court has held that payment of non-compete fee does not result in acquisition of a capital asset or alteration of the profit-making structure of the business, and is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
“Thus non-compete fee only seeks to protect or enhance the profitability of the business, thereby facilitating the carrying on of the business more efficiently and profitably. Such payment neither results in creation of any new asset nor accretion to the profit earning apparatus of the payer. The enduring advantage, if any, by restricting a competitor in business, is not in the capital field”, the Court observed.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
GST | Allahabad High Court Grants Stay On Composite Show Cause Notice For Multiple Assessment Years
Case Title: M/S S.D. Freshners Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Mahesh Prasad And Another Versus Union Of India And 5 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 7500 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted stay on composite show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence where multiple assessment years have been clubbed in one show cause notice.
Petitioner approached the High Court against a single show cause notice issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad for tax period starting from August 2019 to September 2023. It was pleaded that the same could not be done as each tax period is a separate cause of action.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s Ushabala Chits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.14745 of 2021
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that interest and penalty collected by chit fund companies from defaulting subscribers for delayed payment of instalments are not taxable under GST.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether the interest/penalty collected for the delay in payment of the monthly subscription by the members forms a supply under GST.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane Vs. Vrushali Sanjay Shinde
Case No.: ITA(L) No. 12683 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that an approval granted under Section 153D of the Act, which does not reflect even minimal application of mind, is vitiated in law and renders the consequential proceedings invalid.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding an appeal, answered the substantial question of law against the Revenue i.e. Whether an approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, without recording reasons, can nevertheless be treated as mechanical and invalid for lack of application of mind and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had quashed the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.
Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Notices Issued Against Mumbai Company After SVLDRS Settlement
Case Title: Astute Valuers and Consultanta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 74 of 2023
The Bombay High Court has held that once a dispute is settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and a Discharge Certificate is issued, tax authorities cannot reopen the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Advait M Sethna set aside two show cause notices issued by officers of the Central GST Audit-II wing, Mumbai, after the dispute was settled under the Scheme.
Case Title: M/s Colorcon Asia pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case No.: Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2024
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by an Indian subsidiary to its foreign shareholder must be restricted to the treaty rate of 10% under Article 11 of the India-UK India Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd., and set aside the advance ruling passed by the Board for Advance Rulings, (BFAR) New Delhi.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: M/s. JJ Traders v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2144 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs) circulars are binding on departmental officers but cannot be used as a protective shield in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or invoices is in doubt.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that it cannot be doubted that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs would be binding on all its officers but at the same time there can also not be any cavil to the proposition that a circular issued by the Board whether instructive or clarificatory or otherwise has to operate within the statutory framework and has to be applied only when there is no doubt raised regarding the genuineness of the consignment and the transaction and the documents are in order.
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19155 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that the GST authorities do not have the power under Section 67 of the CGST Act to seal or seize cash. Accordingly, the bench directed the immediate de-sealing of Rs. 24 lakhs.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined whether the GST authorities have the power to seize cash under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner SGST, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2192 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of the registration certificate of the supplier in question, no other ground has been mentioned by the appellate authority as a ground for denial of Input Tax Credit.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹45.36 Crore GST Demand Against NBCC After Finance Ministry Clarification
Case Title: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a Rs 45.36 crore GST demand raised against NBCC (India) Ltd, a state-owned construction and project management company under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in connection with the redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain set aside the demand after relying on a clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance, which stated that the Union Ministry itself was the principal supplier of leasing services from the project and that NBCC acted only as its implementing agency.
Case Detail: JK India (Fabs) vs. Union of India
Case No.: W.P.(C)-14644/2022
The Delhi High Court in a matter where importer could not avail Infrastructure Cess exemption due to technical glitch, has directed the Customs Department to re-assess and refund the excess Infrastructure Cess of ₹55,876.29 paid by the Petitioner on imported electrically operated golf carts.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, observed that since Electronically Operated Golf Carts qualified for exemption from payment of Infrastructure Cess, the excess amount paid cannot be held back.
Case Name: Manikjeet Singh Kals vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the adjudication process in a matter involving validity of a Show Cause Notice which was signed by an Officer, but portal reflected the same under the name of another Officer.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain relegated the Petitioner to avail remedy of appeal against order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Delhi (South), CGST before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram. The Delhi High Court observed that when there were multiple parties involved and Show Cause Notices have to be adjudicated, the Adjudicating Authority was fixed on the basis of the jurisdiction which has the highest tax demand.
Case Detail: MD. Aniqul Islam VS. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Writ Petitions challenging GST Summons issued by the Enforcement Agency, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) alleging clandestine trading of tobacco on 'merits'.
In a judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, deliberated on the interplay between Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Delhi High Court made observations on how 'Summons' for the purpose of 'Inquiry' shall be deemed 'Judicial Proceeding'.
Case title: Varner Retail Services South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Division - Okhla, Central Goods And Service Tax (Delhi South) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12049/2023
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retail business' plea seeking benefit of government's tax amnesty scheme for a second show cause notice issued to it post the cut-off date, in pursuance of the first SCN.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain clarified that mere reference to earlier SCN doesn't make subsequent SCN eligible under Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDR Scheme).
Case Name: Aggarwal Construction Co. Through Its Proprietor Mr.Sanjeev Aggarwal vs. Commissioner CGST
In yet another writ petition, concerning works contract services provided to Delhi Jal Board, where its status as a 'Local Authority' was called-into-question, the Delhi High Court has stayed the summary Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that few similar disputes relating to whether when rendering works contract services to Delhi Jal Board, the Construction Company treated it as a 'Local Authority' and paid GST at concessional rate of 12%.
Case title: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union Of India & Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8191/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that approval of collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers is only required in cases where tax evaded is less than the threshold limit of ₹25 Lakh.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “the appropriate authority for initiating the prosecution proceedings would be the sanctioning authority i.e., the PCIT and not the collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers since the tax to be evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lacs.”
Case title: M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2281/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the GST Department cannot raise fresh demands for a period prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, after the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain held, “no demand can be raised after the resolution plan has been approved ,in respect of a period prior thereto.”
Case title: M/S Truespices India Inc v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18966/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs authorities to consider releasing the bank guarantee of a city-based pan masala exporter, forfeited after conflicting lab reports about adulteration of its export products with tobacco.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that when no objections were found in the first lab test report (CRCL), “the circumstances which warranted the issuance of the second CRCL report are completely unknown and it does not specify as to why the same were issued.”
Case title: Mohit Mann v. UoI
Case no.: REVIEW PET. 621/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under the garb of attending weddings where wearing gold jewellery is a common affair, a foreigner of Indian origin cannot be permitted to bring half kg gold jewellery to India.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar further added that there was no explanation for the Petitioner, a US citizen, to bring 17 high value mobile phones (iPhones) to India and walk through the green channel.
Case title: Navneet Bansal v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4723/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the precedents barring invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST/ ITC transactions equally apply to cases of fraudulent CENVAT Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction…In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal. In the opinion of this Court, the same shall be applicable to cases of CENVAT Credit.”
Can GST Be Levied On Medicines Supplied During In-Patient Treatment? Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Detail: Escorts Heart Institute And Research Centre Limited vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit
The Delhi High Court will examine whether GST can be demanded on medicines and consumables supplied to patients as part of inpatient treatment.
The court issued notice in a writ petition filed by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare, challenging a GST demand of Rs 6.66 crore, along with interest and penalty.
Income Tax Act | S.153C Trigger Starts On Handing-Over Date, Not Search Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram Vs. Deepak Kumar Aggarwal
Case No.: ITA No. 742/2025 CM APPL. 78543/2025 CM APPL. 78544/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which had rejected a reassessment notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the six-year block period under Section 153C must be computed from the date when seized documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer of the “other person,” and not from the date of search on the original assessee.
Case title: M/S J.K. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh. Jai Kishan Bansal v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8293/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and the commissionerate is decided, depending upon the monetary demands that are proposed to be raised and the manner in which the investigation would have proceeded.”
Case title: M/S Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17289/2025
The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to be reflected in the order or in any other communication like a Show Cause Notice, failing which there is no way of knowing as to who has passed the order.”
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/4700/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled on the basis of a cryptic show cause notice, which merely quotes statutory provisions without disclosing the factual grounds.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted that apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, there are no facts or any details stated in the show cause notice.
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Limited v. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/6430/2025
The Gauhati High Court found that Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017, which restricts input tax credit, runs contrary to the Constitutional framework and the provisions of the CGST Act. Consequently, the bench stayed the operation of the show-cause notices (SCN) issued to Patanjali Foods Limited.
Justice Manish Choudhury was addressing a case in which Patanjali Foods Limited, the assessee, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/S Panchhi Traders Through its Authorized Signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki Vs State of Gujarat Through Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) & Anr.
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 9250 of 2020 and connected matters
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the power of GST authorities to confiscate goods and conveyances during transit where there is a clear intent to evade tax, and has clarified the scope and interplay of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, while deciding a large batch of writ petitions, held that Sections 129 (detention and seizure of goods in transit) and 130 (confiscation of goods and conveyances) operate independently and are not inter-dependent, even after the amendments.
Case Detail: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
The Gujarat High Court has held that reliance on statements of witnesses without allowing the manufacturer opportunity to cross‑examine, while ignoring those statements that testified in favour of the manufacturer, violates principles of natural justice.
In a judgment delivered on November 25, 2025 Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the penalty order and culled-out 8 quintessential features of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly, clauses (a ) and (b) that introduces the element of cross-examination of the witness who has given the statement before a Customs Officer.
Case Name: Rajhans Metals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Case No.: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1564 of 2011 & R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1037 of 2008
The Gujarat High Court has allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input used in setting up of a Windmill, away from factory premises, on the strength of nexus of the inputs with output activity, electricity generation.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi in twin writ petitions has set aside order of CESTAT Ahmedabad that disallowed CENVAT credit on the ground that credit of inputs and input services utilized away from the factory site for setting-up Windmill could not be availed. In turn, the Gujarat High Court emphasized on 'nexus with manufacturing activity' noting that installation, erection and commissioning were 'exclusively' used in the manufacturing activity viz. electricity generated at Windmill.
Case Name: Durga Gopal Shinde Sole Proprietorship vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court has restored GST registration subject to compliance with filing of pending returns and payment of outstanding tax with interest, late fee and penalty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi permitted filing of GST returns for past period after noting copy of GST Returns for the period from April 2022 to December 2024, self-ascertained tax liability discharged through Electronic Cash Ledger.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 22377 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court held that bona fide errors in GSTR-3B returns are rectifiable and cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the KGST /CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed the department to accept the revised returns, noting that the Supreme Court has also directed the CBIC to re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors.
Case Title: M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6126 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that for the purpose of determining the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the factor is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier.
Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar stated that the assessee had not handed over the goods to the common carrier for the purpose of delivery to the ultimate destination; the liability to pay IGST under Section 10(1)(a) would arise only upon the movement of the goods terminating for delivery to the recipient at various places outside Karnataka. Undisputedly, the supply of goods is inter-State supply and not intra-State supply so as to attract CGST or KGST.
Case Title: M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33081 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act.
The bench opined that a composite notice for multiple financial years enables the Department to blur the statutory distinction between Section 73 (non-fraud, etc.,- 3 year limitation) and Section 74 (fraud etc., - 5 year limitation). If certain years fall under Section 73, but the entire block is treated under Section 74, the authority artificially extends limitation and bypasses mandatory statutory constraints and if such a course is permitted it clearly tantamounts to a colorable exercise of power which is impermissible in law.
Kerala HC
Case Title: The South Indian Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA NO.64 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that once a bank accepts valid Form 15H declarations from senior citizen depositors under Section 197A(1C) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be treated as an “assessee in default” for non-deductions of TDS (deduct tax at source) on interest income.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the bank (appellant) has to be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct TDS on interest income paid to senior citizens who have furnished declarations in Form 15H.
Case Title: Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. v. State Of Kerala
Case Number: OTC NO.1 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that expenditure incurred on the upkeep and maintenance of rubber trees, including expenses relating to replantation and replacement, is revenue in nature and therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon were examining the issue regarding the entitlement of the assessee for deduction of the expenditure incurred by it for replantation/ replacement of rubber trees as well as their upkeep with reference to the provisions of the AIT Act, read with the provisions of Rule 7A of the Income Tax Rules,1962.
Case Title: Pazhassi Motors v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 45451 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017), being a non-obstante provision, overrides the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) once returns are filed within the cut-off date specified therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated, Section 16(5) starts with the wording “notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection 4.” This would indicate that, once the taxpayer submits the return within the period stipulated in Section 16(5), the time limit contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST loses its significance.
Madras HC
Case Title: Jasmine Towels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No. 394 of 2012
The Madras High Court held that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is valid if the original order is completely silent on the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar stated that the original order of assessment is wholly silent in regard to the claim under Section 80HHC. Normally, when an order of assessment is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, there is a presumption that the issues raised for consideration in the return of income have been duly taken note of by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Shri. Harigovind v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Non-corporate
Case Number: W.P.Nos.23014 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that the notices under Section 153C are unsustainable where a search for 'other person' was initiated after 01.04.2021.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 153C is not only for the purpose of abatement but also for all other purposes, viz., initiation of search for other person in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act. In such a case, the date of initiation of search for the assessee is the date on which the documents were handed over to the JAO of the assessee, i.e., 25.11.2022 is the date of initiation of search for the assessee.
Orissa HC
Case Title: Abhijit Nayak v. The Commissioner of (CT & GST), Odisha and others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.32643 of 2025
The Orissa High Court held that while a writ petition may be entertained when the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is not constituted or functional, such non-availability cannot be used to bypass the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman stated that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 23907 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, holding that the availability and operationalisation of the statutory appellate remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Acts for the period April 2020 to March 2021, which was affirmed by the first appellate authority. The principal contention was that although a second appeal lay under Section 112 of the GST Act, the GSTAT had not been constituted earlier, rendering the petitioner without remedy.
Case Detail: Subrat Rout vs. The Commissioner of (C.T. & G.S.T.), Odisha and others
The Orissa High Court in a matter involving 'mistaken identity' where one individual was assessed despite having a cancelled registration number (GSTIN), has quashed Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted the 'mistaken fact' in Section 73 adjudication proceedings. It was clarified that Section 73 was invoked on the premise there was an alleged mismatch in figures disclosed by 'Subrat Rout' instead of a 'Subrat Kumar Rout' in the returns vis-à-vis receipt of amount towards works contract, pertaining to the tax period December 2018.
Case Title: M/s. Simon India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 33058 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has held that a GST interest and penalty waiver application filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected merely because a portion of tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) was initially discharged through input tax credit, subsequently pays the amount in cash and complies with legal requirements.
A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman heard the writ petition filed by Simon India Ltd., a company engaged in execution of works contracts, challenging the rejection of its application seeking waiver of interest and penalty in relation to GST demands raised for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
Patna HC
Case title: M/S ACC Limited v. State of Bihar
Case no.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2023
In a ruling on sales tax valuation under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the Patna High Court has held that packing materials used for cement, such as gunny bags and HDPE bags, form an integral part of cement sales and cannot be subjected to separate tax rates distinct from the cement itself.
The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman dismissed a batch of miscellaneous appeals filed by ACC Limited. The appeals pertained to multiple assessment years ranging from 1996-97 to 2000-01.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Arun Garg v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRM-M-25342-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even in cases involving economic offences under the CGST Act, courts must not proceed on the presumption that “Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception”.
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney stated that even in cases involving economic offences, the Court seized of the matter has to go through the gravity of the offence, the object of the Act, the attending circumstances, etc. Thus, economic offences cannot be categorised in one group, and the Court should not proceed on the presumption that “Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception”.
Case title: Bhupinder Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh and others
Case no.: CWP-29843-2025
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of income tax assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Panaji, Goa, holding that the Revenue authorities acted within their powers under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the transfer was justified in public interest to facilitate coordinated investigation.
Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "absence of allegations of mala fide on the respondent's part the transfer of the petitioner's assessment jurisdiction from Chandigarh to Goa has been exercised by the revenue for its administrative convenience; to facilitate effective investigation and coordinated assessment; for efficient collection of tax and in public interest. Prior thereto, principles of natural justice were duly followed and that the transfer order also contains adequate and acceptable reasons."
Sikkim HC
Case Title: Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2) Gangtok
Case No.: Tax App. No. 02 of 2025
The Sikkim High Court has held that a non-bank co-operative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on interest income earned from investments made with co-operative banks, and that Section 80P(4) does not bar such deduction.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai allowed the tax appeal filed by the Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (SIMFED) and set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, which had denied the benefit.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/s. Face IT Systems LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.76501 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Face Recognition Access Control Systems perform data processing functions, such as data storage, read-write memory operations and automated processing, and therefore qualify as an Automatic Data Processing Machine under CTH 8471. The bench clarified that these systems are eligible for NIL customs duty exemption.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the Access Controller Face Recognition System has read and write memory, has 4 GB RAM, 64 GB nano flash, is capable of processing program, can read from camera, card and QR code and there is embedded Linux Operating System. It is capable for automatic face detection even with mask. The configuration and functions show that there cannot be any doubt that the device has all the functions qualifying to be classified as Automatic Data Processing Machine.
Customs | Import Duty Must Be Determined At Time Of Import, Not On Later Sale Price: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41046 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs duty is required to be assessed on the transaction value declared at the time of import, as reflected in the supplier's invoice. Any subsequent sale or higher remittance made after the import cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the addition under the guise of short-payment of duty, which related to the actual remittances made by the assessee/HDFC Bank to its foreign suppliers as compared to the declared/transaction value at the time of import, is justified or not.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42458 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on membership and participation fees paid to foreign associations such as International Packaging Group (IPG) or International Packaging Forum Network (IPFN) for the period prior to 01.07.2012.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri (Technical Member) stated that the demand for the period prior to 1.7.2012 on IPG/IFPN is unsustainable as there was no evidence that these bodies are mere association of persons and not imported neither have rendered any services to the appellant and the condition of relationship of service recipient with the service provider is absent.
Income Tax Act | GST Would Not Form Part Of Gross Receipts Under Section 44BB: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title: Oceaneering International GmbH v. DCIT (International Taxation)
Case No.: ITA No. 6705/Mum/2025 | AY 2023–24
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected by a non-resident assessee cannot be included in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Oceaneering International GmbH for Assessment Year 2023–24 and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude GST while computing income on a presumptive basis.
Service Tax | Tax Paid Under Wrong Service Category Cannot Be Demanded Again: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 85614 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand raised against the assesse, holding that once service tax has already been paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, merely under a wrong service category, the department cannot demand the same tax again.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), granting consequential relief to the assessee.
Case Detail: Summit Hotels & Resorts Private Limited
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of restaurant services, including the supply of aerated beverages, would be taxable at the rate of 18% GST.
In a ruling by Shri. Shafeeq S (Member- Central Tax) and Shri. Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti (Member-State Tax) examined the two kinds of supply of Aerated Drinks viz. (i) With food (shown separately in bill and (ii) Individually (only aerated water). The West Bengal AAR considering the 'factual matrix' observed that supply of aerated beverages with restaurant service to be consumed at the premises itself was to be treated as a 'composite' one and not an individual supply. To illustrate, the West Bengal AAR noted that there was no over-the-counter sale of sealed bottles/cans and hence the Applicant was supplying Carbonated Drinks with food which constitutes as 'composite supply of service'.
Case Title: Shri Dharanidhar Ghosh v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75242 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a mere allegation by a co-accused that the assessee handed over gold cannot serve as the sole basis for imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The bench clarified that in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence supporting this claim, the statement of the co-accused is not sufficient to implicate the assessee in the said offence.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that in the absence of any independent corroboration, such an exculpatory statement of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis for implicating the assessee in the alleged offence and imposition of penalty on him.
Income Tax | ITAT Mumbai Allows Section 80P Deduction On Interest Earned From Co-operative Banks
Case Title: Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. ITO Ward-1(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6376/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a co-operative housing society to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act on interest income earned from deposits placed with co-operative banks.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and set aside the denial of deduction by the tax authorities for Assessment Year 2021–22.
Case Title: M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Air)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40959 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that merely sending imported goods to a job worker for manufacture does not violative exemption conditions. Since there was no allegation of the sale of goods, the exemption of benefit under Notification No. 73/2006-Cus dated 10.07.2006 cannot be denied to Godrej.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order alleged that the assessee had sold the imported goods to the job worker. In the absence of any such allegation, merely dispatching the goods to a job worker for manufacture cannot be a ground to deny the exemption benefit.
Case Title: M/s. WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 42318 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not submitted in a prescribed or revised format.
The bench opined that the format prescribed under the public notice is only indicative, and once the assessee has produced documents evidencing payment of VAT/CST, the refund cannot be denied merely due to a technical lapse in the format of the Chartered Accountant certificate.
Case Name: Shubhabrata Chowdhury
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of unskilled labour for special cleanliness drive for cleaning Ganga ghats would qualify as 'Pure Service'.
In a ruling by Shri. Shafeeq S (Member- Central Tax) and Shri. Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti (Member-State Tax) it was observed that operation and maintenance services to various Corporations and Municipalities who were 'Local Authorities'.
Case Name: Sett Dey And Co Homoeo Lab
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that homeopathic medicines having a single, two or more components formulated exclusively in alignment with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, irrespective of retail sale, attracted 5% GST.
In a ruling by Shri. Shafeeq S (Member- Central Tax) and Shri. Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti (Member-State Tax) from the two Tariff Entries 3003 and 3004 inferred that medicines manufactured by the Applicant consisted of two or more constituents mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses.
Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.79423 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that seizure of goods cannot be sustained merely on the assumption that they were intended for export through non-specified routes. In the absence of any corroborative evidence establishing intent to export illegally, such presumption alone is insufficient to justify such seizure.
Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) opined that the mere presumption that the goods were meant for export to Nepal through other than the specified routes cannot be a valid reason to uphold the seizure in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to the said effect.
Case Detail: Ashutosh Metal Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) confirmed demand of service tax on commission earned on account of sale of agricultural produce, Indian Raw Cotton under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
The CESTAT upheld order by the lower authority fastening service tax liability of ₹71.75 lakhs and ₹90.56 lakhs for the periods 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
Case Title: M/S KEC International
Case No.: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹18.95 crore raised against the assessee, KEC International, holding that the Department wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation without establishing any intent to evade tax .
A Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Mr. P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and quashed the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula. solely on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under Section 73 cannot be invoked without proven mens rea deliberate fraud, suppression with evasion intent, or willful misstatement as mandated by Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals (1995) 78 ELT 401 (SC).
Case Title: M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50848 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the cancellation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that the broker helped export prohibited goods by filing documents in the name of a firm that had never hired it.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member–Technical) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
Customs Act | No Time Bar For Shipping Bill Conversion Under Section 149: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Commissioner of customs, Nhava Sheva-II Vs. ADF Foods Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87408 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against ADF Foods Ltd., holding that exporters can seek conversion of shipping bills from one export incentive scheme to another even after several years, as long as the law does not prescribe any time limit.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) upheld the earlier relief granted to the exporter and confirmed that the Revenue could not reopen the issue once it had already been settled by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 86159 of 2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a penalty imposed on a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), holding that merely claiming an exemption or classification as per the importer's instructions does not amount to misdeclaration or misconduct.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., a Customs Broker, and quashed the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act stating that Customs Brokers cannot be punished for bona fide classification claims made on the basis of importer instructions and available records, particularly when the importer ultimately succeeds on merits.
Case Title: Shri Indihaf Jamal Mohamed v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2398/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely due to delay in registration if investment in new residential property is made within the prescribed time.
George George K (Vice President) stated that if the assessee has utilised the sale proceeds within the stipulated time, the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act, provided the assessee has satisfied the other conditions stipulated under Section 54 of the Act.
Case Title: Nico Extrusions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85057 of 2020, Customs Appeal No. 85085 of 2020
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside orders enhancing the value of scrap consignments merely on the basis of National Import Data Base (NIDB) data and a Directorate General of Valuation (DGoV) circular.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that the customs authorities could not discard the declared transaction value without strictly following Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and that mere comparison with NIDB data or reliance on the DGoV circular was insufficient to justify enhancement.
Customs | Bird Feather Used In Fashion Accessories, Ready-To-Wear Items For Luxury Brands Classifiable As 'Dyed': Mumbai AAR
Case Detail: Vastrakala Exports Private Limited
The Mumbai, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) has held that import of Dyed Feathers, wherein dying activity took place in France was classifiable as 'Dyed Feather' in terms of the General Rules of Interpretation.
In a ruling dated December 15, 2025 Shri. Prabhat K. Rameshwaram on classification clarified that imported Feathers were intended for use as ornamental materials in embroidery for luxury brands and they underwent 'working' viz. washing, steam drying and dying activities.
Home Delivery Services By E-Commerce Platforms To Consumers Exempt From GST: West Bengal AAR
Case Name: In Re: Flipkart India Private Limited
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that transportation services proposed to be provided by Flipkart India Private Limited under a new logistics model qualify as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services and are exempt from GST when supplied to unregistered end customers under Serial No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017–Central Tax (Rate).
Flipkart India Private Limited, which was already engaged in B2B trading of goods, proposed to introduce a logistics model involving transportation of goods exclusively by road for customers purchasing goods through an e-commerce platform operated by Flipkart Internet Private Limited. At the time of filing the application, the proposed activity had not commenced and the ruling was sought strictly in respect of the proposed model.
Services Performed Outside India Not Taxable Under RCM; No Import Of Services: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40357 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services performed outside India are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), even if payments are made by an Indian entity or involve group companies. The bench further opined that reimbursements to foreign subsidiaries do not constitute “import of services” in the absence of any service rendered by the assessee.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when services are performed outside India, even if the payment is made by an Indian entity or the contract involves group companies, the services are not taxable in India.
Case Title: M/s. GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40763 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the captive exemption under Notification 67/95-CE remains available even if the final product is partly cleared on duty payment and partly under exemption.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that captive exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE is available to the relays captively used in the manufacture of control panels cleared on payment of duty, under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.41180 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that while computing the amount of CENVAT credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only credit pertaining to common input services is required to be considered.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether cenvat credit of input services exclusively used for a dutiable product should be taken or the total cenvat credit of only common input service should be taken for the purpose of calculating the cenvat credit for reversal in terms of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Central Excise | Packaged Drinking Water Cannot Be Assessed On MRP Basis U/S 4A: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 41775 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that packaged drinking water is not liable to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act unless it is specifically covered by a statutory notification.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether packaged drinking water is to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Centre Projects ₹47,700 Crore Revenue Loss Amid GST Rate-Rationalisation
The Centre has estimated a Net Negative Revenue loss of ₹ 47,700 crore due to GST rate-rationalisation. However, it was clarified that shift from 28% to the 40% tax bracket were projected to account for an additional revenue of approximately ₹45,570 Crore.
The Finance Ministry in response to whether a Group of Ministers were to be constituted by the GST Council to address the issues of initial revenue losses incurred by the States due to GST 2.0, answered in negative.
Centre Notifies Reallocation Of Territorial Jurisdiction Of DRTs In West Bengal Under RDB Act
The Central Government has notified a reallocation of territorial jurisdiction among four Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in West Bengal through a notification dated December 16, 2025, issued by the Ministry of Finance under Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
The notification amends the earlier jurisdictions notified on March 15, 2017, and reorganises how cases are distributed among the Kolkata and Siliguri DRTs.