SUPREME COURTIncome Tax Act | Rejection Of Settlement Application Does Not Affect Assessee's Right To Contest Assessment Order On Merits : Supreme CourtCause Title: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 SURAT VERSUS M. D. INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 SURAT VERSUS M. D. INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.
Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the assessee's right to challenge the assessment order on merits under the Income Tax Act, observed the Supreme Court.
"The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.", a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, dismissing the department's appeal.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 77 of 2025
While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
“While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the proceedings is a goal that all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities may pursue, at the same time, they may remain conscious of their non-negotiable commitment to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before such judicial decision making is achieved,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title: M/s Century Laminating Company Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager v. Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control Board
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 1001686 of 2004
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry.
“In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or incidental process carried on by a particular industry in running its business,” held Justice Irshad Ali.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1021 of 2025
Case name: M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor v. State of U.P. and 3 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST Authorities cannot claim jurisdiction for levying tax, penalty, and interest on work that was concluded prior to the implementation of the GST Act.
Notices were issued to the petitioner, a work contractor, for the Financial Year 2018-19 under the GST Act. The petitioner was unable to reply to the notices in time. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed, levying tax, penalty and interest on him. Aggrieved, he sought relief before the High Court.
Case Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.
He held that, despite the fact that the petitioner submitted the report with delay, the authority to take action was the Assistant Commissioner. It was held that the petitioner could not be suspended in a case where the appropriate authority chose not to cancel the GST registration of the firm in question.
Bombay HC
CASE NUMBER: WRIT PETITION NO. 6467 OF 2025
CASE TITLED:M/S SUMAN S. CONSTRUCTION VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
On November 14th, 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Suman Construction (“assessee” hereinafter), a government-registered civil contractor, which had challenged the service tax demand raised on road construction works for government departments.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the assessee could invoke a rectification application under Section 74 of the Finance Act to claim service-tax exemption for such government road projects, instead of filing a statutory appeal against the Order.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11261 OF 2025
CASE TITLED: SAVITRIBAI PHULE SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, KAMLAPUR VS. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION (INVESTIGATION) PUNE & ORS.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Charitable Trust “Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak” seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order passed by the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (Investigation) Pune whereby the Trust/Petitioner's application for condonation of delay 509 days in filing its Form 9A for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected.
Per Explanation below Section 11(7) of the Income Tax Act, 196, the Charitable Trusts were required to claim Application of Income on an “Actual Payment Basis”, incorporated after the Finance Act, 2022 from A.Y. 2022-2023 whereby the application of income was to be claimed on the basis of “Actual Payment Basis” and not “Accrual Basis”.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor P. Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that a rebate under Rule 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be denied without determining the tax liability on exported goods, and has remanded Yamaha's rebate claim to the principal commissioner for fresh consideration.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna were examining whether the India Yamaha Motor P. Limited was entitled to a rebate under Rule 18 CER 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6 September 2024 in respect of the finished products upon which BED and NCCD was paid by the Yamaha (initially by utilising CENVAT credit, and later in cash), in so far as such payments concern the export of the finished products outside the India.
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 32001 of 2025
Case Titled: Shabana Aijaz Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward- 3(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the reassessment notice did not follow the mandate that the Faceless Assessing Officer only has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was further stated that even international taxation matters could be made subject to the faceless regime.
A Division Bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, whereby the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice, on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(AO) violating the mandate of the reassessment notice to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer(AO).
CGST Act | Bombay High Court Stays GST Demand Order Over Delayed Service Of Showcause Notice
Case Titled: Octantis Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Union Of India And Anr
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6043 Of 2023
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to the assessee by staying the operation of a GST Demand Order
The Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ preferred by the assessee seeking to quash the GST demand order challenging the Show Case Notice to be time barred per Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Titled: Sukraft Recycling Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 540 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the Department to refund the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess to the assessee observing that a manufacturer exporting goods is entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit(ITC) of Compensation Cess, as Section 16(3)(b) of the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must apply to both the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Compensation Cess.
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P.Mehta stated that we find the justification offered to refuse the benefit to the Petitioner, to be completely lacking logic. and we say so, since we find that the two components, i.e. the component of input tax credit availed under CGST/IGST are different from that by way of compensation cess. Worth to note that the mechanism prescribed under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, in order to claim refund for making zero rated supply, is restricted to the CGST and IGST and this is evident from the definition of the term, 'input tax credit' under the CGST Act, as it do not include the compensation cess.
Case Title: Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a company that had ceased to exist due to conversion into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), holding that reopening of assessment against a non-existent entity is “illegal and bad-in-law”.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ petition filed by Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP (successor of Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.), challenging the reassessment proceedings.
Delhi HC
Case title: Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16970/2025
Stating that Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act, the Delhi High Court refused to waive the pre-deposit for appeal by certain Customs Housing Agents against ₹30 crore penalty imposed upon them over import fraud.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The clear position is that the Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act as also the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The CHA ought to perform the same with diligence and commitment. In the present case, permitting misuse of the CHA licence, that too after receiving monthly remuneration for the same shows that the license itself has been sub-let without any control over the same.”
Case title: Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2685/2021
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a Turkmenistan national, alleging that the Indian Customs Department had illegally arrested him in connection with alleged gold smuggling back in 2018.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the Department had produced the seized gold jewellery in a sealed cover and the same, upon inspection, could not be termed as 'personal effect' of the Petitioner.
Case title: Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya
Case no.: CUSAA 162/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered forfeiture of ₹2,00,000/- out of the ₹5 lakh security deposit made by a Customs Broker at the time of obtaining license, citing allegations of duty drawback fraud against it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with an appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order, restoring the Respondent-broker's license and setting aside forfeiture of security deposit.
Case Name: Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16727/2025
The Delhi High Court, while examining whether pre-consultation prior to a GST Show Cause Notice was mandatory or discretionary, granted interim relief to Aadhar India by permitting the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 29 November 2024 to continue, but directing that any final order passed pursuant thereto should not be given effect without further orders of the Court.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, heard a writ petition on the constitutional validity of Notification No. 79/2020- Central Tax dated October 15, 2020 (Notification) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Notification amended Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by making pre-consultation to the Show Cause Notice under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, discretionary and unlike the previous regime in which it was held to be mandatory.
“Gross Concealment”: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Party In Poppy Seeds Smuggling Case
Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17242/2025
The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by the Court.
Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Orders Passed By Audit Officer Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction
Case title: H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: ST.APPL. 63/2014 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.
Form DVAT-50 enables the VAT Commissioner to authorize officials for carrying out audit, investigation and enforcement functions under Delhi Value Added Tax Act and Rules. However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that no such authorization was made in favour of VATO (Audit) before 15th October, 2014.
Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15169/2025
The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain stated that the officials of the GST Department ought to have re-inspected the new premises for Show Cause Notice proceedings to continue. It was also noted that present petition was limited to retrospective cancellation of the GST registration.
Case title: M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17106/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside the demand raised against a stock broker, noting that both the show cause notice as well as the final order were bereft of any reasons, disabling the broker to make effective representation.
“It is seen that the SCN actually does not give any reasons…Even the impugned order does not give any reasons,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10189/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus held that Global Opportunities Private Limited will be entitled to claim GST refund on export of services under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Reconsidering Cap On Value Of Gold Jewellery Permitted At Airports: CBIC To Delhi High Court
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has informed the Delhi High Court that it is considering increasing the cap on the value of gold that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
Currently, the Baggage Rules 2016 permit any jewellery of 20 grams with a value cap of Rs. 50,000/- in case of a man and 40 grams with a value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of a woman to be cleared free of duty.
Case title: Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15646/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed Delhi Sales Corporation to deposit pre-SCN penalty contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, despite issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(8).
This, after a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner-Corporation had already deposited tax and interest in terms of Section 74(5).
Case title: Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16355/2025
The Delhi High Court recently found time-barred, an income tax reassessment notice generated by the Department on the last day of the limitation window but, issued to the assessee only a day after.
The limitation period in the case at hand expired on June 30, 2025 (inclusive). The Income Tax Department claimed that the notice was generated on June 30, 2025 at 21:14:46 and signed on June 30, 2025 at 21:16:15 however, due to a technical glitch, it was shared on the assessee's e-filing portal only the next day.
Case title: Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16937/2025 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The position has been in dispute since introduction of the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, which led to the setting up of the National Faceless Assessment Centre with Faceless Assessing Officers.
Gujarat HC
Case Name: Kamnath Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer
Case No. : Special Civil Application No. 1231 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court has extended benefit of Amnesty Scheme under the Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) Act, 2003 to dealer who was precluded from making full payment under the Scheme on account of 'automatic' re-adjustment of instalment amount.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi set aside rejection of application under the Scheme noting that non-payment of differential amount was only due to technical glitches of the online portal. The High Court emphasized on 'clear and unequivocal intent' to avail the Scheme and observed that “The delay of 2 days in making the payment in the aforesaid Scheme is condoned.”
Case Name: VVF India Ltd. vs. Union Of India
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 4418 of 2014
The Gujarat High Court in a writ petition has quashed a show cause notice creating duty demand of about Rs. 464 crores on import of Crude Palm Kernel Oil (Edible Grade).
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi ruled on whether Oil even if of edible grade but required refining before human consumption qualified for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2022-Customs r/w Notification No. 21/2002-Customs (Exemption Notification). The High Court rejected the interpretation that crude palm kernel oil imported of edible grade is not eligible for exemption on account of the 'end-use condition' specified in the Exemption Notification.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: M/s. Maa Kalyani Electrical Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition(T) No. 5009 Of 2025
The Jharkhand High Court held that once an appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount, the Appellate Authority does not become functus officio and was competent to decide the appeal on merits if the mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service Tax amount was subsequently complied with by the assessee.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar, stated that the appeal at the earlier occasion was dismissed solely on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to make the pre-requisite mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount before filing of the appeal and not on merits and this has been specifically noted in the order dated 10.01.2023. Therefore, once the appeal had not been decided on merits but had, in fact, not been entertained, there was no question of the Authority of having become “functus officio” after the deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount as alleged by the writ petitioner.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 27259 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Centre cannot retain wrongly paid IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) once the correct tax is paid to the State authorities.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that since the assessee had wrongly paid IGST and later paid the correct tax to the State GST, the Central government must refund IGST to the assessee.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7053 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that co-operative societies not engaged in banking are not entitled to TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) exemption under section 194A (3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was dealing with a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the proviso to section 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which imposed a restriction, based on the gross receipts or turnover of the Societies, in the matter of exemption from the obligation to make TDS from the income as the interest on deposits.
Case Title: Liyakhat Ali v. The Commissioner, State GST Department
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44655 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the GST Department to take action on alleged tax evasion involving frozen chicken being sold at 0% GST instead of the applicable 5%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. recorded that the petitioner, who is a chicken meat dealer, had highlighted serious allegations of tax evasion in sale of frozen chicken in Kerala.
Case Title: M/s Shree Contractor v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 37299 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that a contractor can claim increased GST (Goods and Services Tax) during work, even if bills were paid before the rate increase.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that at the time of execution of the contract, the rate was only 5% and the increase took place during the execution of the work. Thus, the assessee is entitled to a differential amount of tax.
Case Title: Saleena Shaul Hameed v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40341 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a cancelled GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim the ITC (Input Tax Credit) benefit under Section 16(6) CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that Section 16(6) does not envisage a fresh cause of action in respect of the taxpayers, whose registration is cancelled, for getting the restoration of the registration, only for the purpose of availing the benefit of Section 16(6).
Case Title: M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15898 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court has held that under the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003), the assessing authority cannot cancel permission to pay tax at compounding rates for suppression in the same year it was opted, and only the suppressed turnover can be taxed at normal rates.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim opined that cancellation proceedings are still pending, and the cancellation is not carried out, and the assessment is not concluded on a best judgment assessment basis. In such a case, Section 25AA(5) is applicable, and the option of compounding shall not be cancelled, and the suppressed turnover alone shall be assessed at the scheduled rate applicable to the goods. In view of Section 25AA(5), the Notices proposing to cancel the permission to pay at a compounded rate are clearly unsustainable.
Case Title: M/s Ridha Polymers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17324 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an affidavit by professionals, such as a cost accountant, given during a personal hearing, cannot be ignored, especially when a state tax officer admits facts referred therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that when a professional swears an affidavit before this Court, highlighting the matters that transpired during the course of the hearing, the same cannot be simply ignored, particularly in a situation where, to some extent, there is an admission forthcoming from the part of the State Tax Officer with regard to the matters referred to in the said affidavit. Therefore, the assessee can be granted one more opportunity to be heard.
Case Title: Anish Thomas v. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33642 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding that the assessee missed the hearing due to the non-functional video-conference link (VC link) and because the hearing link was emailed at an odd hour, i.e., at 3:13 a.m. CDT (Central Daylight Time) while he was in the U.S.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the assessee could not utilise the opportunities for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the assessee can be granted another opportunity for a hearing.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Name: Ojas Construction through its Partner Rachna Pathak vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 39844 of 2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed writ petition by a builder seeking reimbursement or refund of differential 6% GST on account of increase in rate (from 12% to 18%) on government works contract w.e.f. July 18, 2022.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the 47th GST Council Meeting which approved suggestions of the Group of Ministers on Rate Rationalization, increased GST rate (from 12% to 18%) on works contract was notified vide Notification No. 03/2022 Central Tax (rate) dated July 13, 2022 (Rate Notification). CBIC vide Circular No. 177/09/2022-TRU dated August 03, 2022 clarified certain issues for implementation relating to GST rates on works contract services.
Madras HC
Case Title: Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(MD)Nos.30453
The Madras High Court has held that using the word 'Determined' in the show cause notice (SCN) betrays an element of pre-determination on the part of the authority. The bench highlighted that the show cause notice must clearly specify whether the assessee is being charged with fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench stated that the authority has used the word “determined”. There is an ocean of difference between specifying something and determining something. The word “determined” found in the show cause notice cannot be construed as “specified”.
Case Title: M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: W.P.Nos.17912 of 2023
The Madras High Court has held that once CESTAT has classified wheat gluten as eligible for DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) exemption, Customs authorities are bound by those findings and cannot independently deny the exemption benefits.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated that the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that Wheat Gluten is not covered under the DFIA Licence and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption. If the CESTAT has already taken a view that Wheat flour and Wheat Gluten fall under the same classification, the entire proceedings of the respondent cannot be sustained, since all the other findings hinge upon only this issue.
Orissa HC
Audit Assessment Under Orissa VAT Act Is Invalid If Audit Visit Report Is Time-Barred: High Court
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited v. State of Odisha
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 12443 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has held that an audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act (Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005) cannot be initiated when the AVR (Audit Visit Report) is beyond the limitation period.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman were examining whether the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with Audit Assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act by issuing of statutory notice in Form VAT-306 on the basis of the AVR submitted under Section 41 after the expiry of the limitation period.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Name: Shyam Sunder Strips & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No. : CWP 23675 of 2025
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed orders that disallowed debit from Electronic Credit Ledgers of taxpayers in excess of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time of passing of the said order.
The Division Bench comprising, Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta followed the principles judicial reasoning for blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86-A as enumerated by Gujarat High Court in case of Samay Alloys and thereafter by Delhi High Court in case of Best Corp Science, Kings Security Guard Services, Karuna Rajendra Ringshia as well as Telangana High Court in Laxmi Fine Chem.
Sikkim HC
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 39 Of 2022
Case Titled: Zydus Healthcare Ltd. (Earlier M/S Zydus Healthcare, Sikkim (Firm)] Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Gangtok
The Sikkim High Court stated that when the reassessment notice itself is illegal, issued without jurisdiction, or beyond the time limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the Court can directly examine the validity of the notice under Article 226, even though an appeal under the Act is otherwise available.
A Single Bench of the Sikkim High Court, comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the challenge goes to the very jurisdiction of reassessment notice under Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Customs Duty Payable On Imported Goods Lost In Fire; Exemption Not Available: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Ajanta Soya Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51089 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported goods which are not used for manufacturing due to fire do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 and hence, customs duty is payable on such goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) held that the assessee was liable to pay the customs duty on entire quantity of the Crude Palm Oil which was either lost in the fire accident or was found short along with interest.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 760/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)
CASE TITLED: SANJAY KOTHARI (HUF) VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
On November 17th, 2025 the Bench of Shri Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) of the ITAT Mumbai partly allowed the appeal holding that the disallowance under Section 14A (Expenditure for exempt income) r/w Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual expenditure of ₹69,455 incurred by the assessee, and that the excess refund of ₹1,26,32,970 received on return of capital advance retained its character as a capital receipt and could not be taxed as income.
The assessee had preferred an appeal before ITAT, Mumbai being aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(Appeals), whereby the CIT(A) further affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, observing that the excess refund of advance received from the Karta, Shri Sanjay Kothari (in his individual capacity), as taxable income in the hands of the HUF.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 6680/MUM/2024
CASE TITLED: LOGWIN AIR & OCEAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that once the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is accepted for benchmarking all international transactions, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot cherry-pick only the management fee and assign an Arm's Length Price (ALP) at NIL.
In the case in hand, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ITAT seeking deletion of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on management fees and the consequential enhancement of income, being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1994.
Case Name: Western Geco International Ltd. vs. The Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal NO. 58089 OF 2013
The Principal Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside service tax demand on offshore seismic survey (data acquisition) by Western Geco International Ltd., Gurugram (project office of Western Geco British Virgin Islands).
The Bench comprising of Mr. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) and Ms. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) examined if data acquired offshore and processing at the Mumbai project office would constitute two separate services. The CESTAT thus observed “Data analysis was not a separate service even though the cost of data analysis was indicated in the contract as 4% of the basic price.”
Case Title: M/s GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 51956 of 2014
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee is ineligible for excise duty refund on ambulances, as it is neither a manufacturer nor a buyer under Section 11B(2)(e) Central Excise Act. The bench further noted that the assessee was merely operating the ambulances under a government agreement, which does not make him a manufacturer or buyer.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the assessee is not a manufacturer or a buyer of the Ambulances, the differential duty paid on which the assessee seeks to claim as a refund. The Ambulances are not registered in their names. They are not the owners of the vehicles.
Case Title: M/s Chemspark India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Custom Appeal No. 86827 of 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has set aside the absolute confiscation of imported goods ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that once the goods had already been re-exported prior to the filing of the Revenue appeal, the order for absolute confiscation of goods is not sustainable in law.
The Bench of Member (Judicial) Ajay Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeal). The Bench stated that without taking into account that the re-export of the goods in issue had already taken place prior to the filing of the appeal by Revenue. Once the goods have been re-exported certainly they were not available for confiscation. As per settled position of law that where the goods are no longer available for confiscation, such confiscation cannot be ordered, except where they have been cleared under bond etc. which is not the case herein.
Case Name: Anupama Agarwal vs. DCIT
Case No. : ITA No. 5676/Del/2025
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remitted back the addition of capital gains deduction to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in absence of a remand report despite repeated reminders.
The Bench, comprising Mr. Mahavir Singh (Vice President) on the claim of assessee that income was an exempt income for being a sum received under life insurance policy noted AO's failure to furnish remand report.
Case Title: Sojitz India private limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 87356 of 2019
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has stated that the commission earned for acting as Indenting agent to its foreign group companies qualifies as 'Export of Services', and therefore is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench comprising Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban set aside the ₹2.77 crore service tax demand (along with interest and penalty) confirmed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Thane Rural.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GSTN Issues Advisory On How To Add Valid Bank Account Details On GST Portal
The Goods and Services Network (GSTN) has issued advisory on furnishing bank account details to avoid suspension of their GST Registration and disruption of business activities. As changes with respect to Rule 10A will be implemented on the GST Portal soon, GSTN clarified that taxpayers who have not yet furnished the bank account details till date to do so at the earliest.
As per Rule 10A, taxpayers are required to furnish valid bank account details within a period of 30 days from the date of grant of GST registration or before furnishing the details of outward supplies of goods or services or both in Form GSTR-01 or using Invoice Furnishing Facility (IFF), whichever is earlier.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27 October 2025, clarifying the assignment of “proper officers” for issuing show cause notices (SCNs) and passing orders under Sections 74A, 75(2) and 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Board noted that until now, no specific officers had been designated for;
tax determination under Section 74A,
re-assessment under Section 75(2) where charges of fraud are not upheld in appeal,
penalty-only proceedings under Section 122,
and issuance of DRC-01A pre-notice intimation under Rule 142(1A).