SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported TrampolinesCase Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTDCase Number: Diary No. 47976/2025The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement...
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTD
Case Number: Diary No. 47976/2025
The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment.
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL VERSUS SADHUMARGI SHANTKRANTI JAIN
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the registration of a trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which recognizes it as a charitable institution for income tax exemption purposes, is sufficient to entitle its donors to claim tax deduction benefits under Section 80G of the Act.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has issued notice on a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court's ruling that once a charitable organization is registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it cannot be denied approval under Section 80G(5) for providing tax deduction benefits to its donors, merely on the ground that it also undertakes religious activities.
Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Case Number: Diary No. 49079/2025
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.
The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand. A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order, observing "We find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
HIGH COURTS
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Title: Kaher Singh & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that obtaining registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not amount to authorisation to conduct a trade or business, nor can payment of tax legitimise an otherwise unlicensed commercial activity.
The High Court clarified that taxation statutes and regulatory licensing statutes operate in distinct spheres, and compliance with one cannot override mandatory licensing requirements under another.
Kerala HC
Case Title: M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 63 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when Assessing Officer (AO) allowed deduction under Section 32AC after proper inquiry.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that merely for the reason that AO extended the deduction claimed after carrying out investigations, the exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act is not required. At worst, the revisional authority can correct the error, if any, committed by the AO, by holding that the extension of the benefit of deduction was erroneous, with reference to the purchase of the assets during the previous years.
Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Appellate Order Against AMMA, Directs Fresh Consideration
Case Title: M/S Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case No: WP(C) 39703/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), against the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), holding that the appellate authority failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by rejecting AMMA's appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, without addressing the merits of the case as mandated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Madras HC
Case Title: D. Tamilselvi v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos.30938
The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that …three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already expired on 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and 31.03.2022. However, Section 148 Notices were issued for these Assessment Years only on 29.07.2022 with approval from the Principal Commissioner instead of approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner in terms of amended provisions as in force for the period in dispute were in time…
TNGST Act | Purchase Tax Cannot Be Levied on Buyer for Seller's Tax Default: Madras High Court
Case Title: Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number: W.P. Nos.19625
The Madras High Court on Monday held that purchase tax cannot be levied under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act) on the purchaser merely because the seller failed to pay tax.
The bench, comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, clarified the scope of Section 7A in transactions where the vendor has defaulted on tax payments. "Having found that the sale to petitioner is liable to tax in the hands of the petitioner's vendor, levy of purchase tax only on the premise that petitioner's vendor had not remitted tax cannot be sustained. If petitioner's vendor fails to remit appropriate tax, Revenue ought to proceed against the petitioner's vendor, instead any levy of purchase tax by the respondent would be bad for want of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained", it said.
Case Title: Sivestar Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
Case Number: W.P.No.6814 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that delay in filing Form 10B required under Section 44AB for the purpose of Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a ground to deny legitimate exemption tax exemptions.
Justice C. Saravanan observed that the assessee was registered as a “Trust” in the year 2017. Effectively, the assessee would have carried on operation as a “Trust” from 01.04.2017 onwards, which would fall under the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
Case Title: M/s. Lucky Footwear Components v. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
Case Number: C.R.P.No.5237 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that an auction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) Act, 1957, is valid when the property is valued by a valuer and registered under Section 34AB of the Wealth-Tax Act.
Chief Justice Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan opined that out of the two valuation reports placed before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal has accepted the valuation made by approved valuer, registered under the provision of Wealth-Tax Act, it cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan HC
Voluntary GST Cancellation Not Grounds To Freeze Company's Bank Account: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/s Bhilwara Trading Company v Bank Of Baroda
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bank of Baroda to de-freeze the account of the petitioner-company, allowing it to use it freely till finally deciding the company's representation, observing that the bank could not freeze the account merely because the company's GST registration was voluntarily cancelled.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a petition filed by a company trading in goods which were exempted from the Goods and Services Tax, whose application for voluntary cancellation of GST registration was allowed by the concerned department.
TRIBUNALS
Customs | AIFTA Exemption Cannot Be Denied Without Verifying Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT
Case Title: Marvel Silver v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86363 OF 2023
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement) exemption cannot be denied without verifying the certificate of origin.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) noted that there is no allegation, let alone ascertainment, that the 'certificate of origin' corresponding to each of the impugned consignments is not authentic or not issued by the competent authority. There is no reasoning offered for concluding that the description of the impugned goods did not conform to the contents of the certificate or packing lists.
Case Title: M/s Vortex Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50494 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the differential duty paid for provisional release is not a pre-deposit. Hence, refund interest payable only at 6% U/S 27A Customs Act, not 12% U/S 35FF Central Excise Act.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that all those goods were ordered to be released as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, at the assessee's own request for provisional release of the goods. This apparent and admitted fact is sufficient to hold that the amounts in question cannot be considered as an amount deposited under protest. Hence, Section 35FF is held to not be applicable to the given set of circumstances.
Case Title: G Amphray Laboratories v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-III)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87856 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that confiscation, penalty & fine cannot be imposed on IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) demand arising from breach of pre-import condition under Customs Act.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) opined that the IGST demand arose because of the breach of the pre-import condition. Although IGST is payable for such a breach, no confiscation or penalty can be imposed merely on that ground.
Case Title: KDS Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD) New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2009
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without any Section 139C certificate under the Customs Act cannot form the basis of assessment.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the computer/ CPU was not sealed at the time of panchnama and was lying with the investigating agency for 47 days, after which it was first examined and then sealed, which raises questions about the authenticity of the data.
Case Title: M/s Texcomash Export & Sh. N.K. Rajgarhia v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 724 of 2005
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that drawback cannot be denied on the grounds of alleged forgery by a foreign buyer after goods are exported under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995.
The single bench consists of (Judicial Member) opined that any forgery, if revealed during a further investigation being committed by the Russian company vis-a-vis the Landing certificate in the light of Drawback Rules in India, is highly insufficient to deny the claim of drawback, specifically when the goods have crossed Indian territory and to reach to a place outside India.
Case Title: Continental Trading Co. v. Principal Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51966 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that an importer cannot be penalised for misdeclaration merely because other importers declared high prices for similar goods under the Customs Valuation Rules.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the mere fact that another importer had imported identical goods from the same overseas exporter at different prices does not prove that the assessee had mis-declared anything in the Bill of Entry.
Advertisement, Promotional And Management Service Payments Excluded From Customs Valuation: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Triumph Motorcycles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Director General (Adjudication), D.R.I., New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50212 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Advertisement and Promotional Expenses and Management Service Fees (APE and MSF) payments are independent transactions, and cannot be included in the transaction value of imported goods.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by the assessee in India are required to be added to the value of the imported goods, treating the said amount as constituting “condition of sale” of imported goods under section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules, 2007.
Case Title: ACIT v. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
Case Number: ITA No.5403/MUM/2025 (A.Y.2022-23)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted Rs. 4.6 Crore disallowance made under Section 14A Income Tax Act, against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in a high-profile income tax case.
The case was heard by bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member) regarding the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act.