Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 05, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCWho Is Prescribed Authority For Appeal U/S 54 U.P. Water Supply & Sewerage Act? Allahabad High Court Asks StateCase Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri v. State Of U.P. And 3 OthersRecently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply...

Supreme Court Issues Notice To IndiGo On Plea Of Customs Dept & GST Council Against Ruling On IGST Exemption For Imported Parts

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that exempted the airline from paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported aircraft parts that were repaired and serviced abroad.A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan...

Income Tax | Rajasthan High Court Quashes Repeated Orders To Transfer Case, Calls Revenue's Approach 'Rigid' & 'Adamant'

The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily on the Revenue Department for being “rigid and adamant” to transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the coordinate bench's earlier decision that quashed the same order.Section 127 of the Act empowers the income tax authorities to transfer a case from one Assessing officer...

Pre-Show Cause Notice Consultation Not An Empty Formality, Mandatory When Demand Is Over ₹50 Lakhs: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that pre-show cause notice consultation is not an empty formality; mandatory before the show cause notice (SCN) in demands above Rs. 50 lakhs. The question before Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was whether a pre-consultation notice would be mandatory before issuing show cause notices where the tax demand exceeds Rs. 50 Lakhs. The bench...

Revisional Powers U/S 56 KVAT Act Are Limited, Clarificatory Orders Have Only Prospective Effect: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold...

Delhi High Court Orders Economic Offences Wing To Probe Alleged Forgery Of Customs Stamps At Airport

The Delhi High Court has asked the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to conduct an enquiry into alleged forgery of Customs stamps at the Delhi International Airport.A division bench comprising ​​justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction after the Department claimed that the Customs stamp on an air traveller's representations in connection with their seized...

Voluntarily Filed Returns Cannot Be Revised Through Additional Evidence Under Rule 29 ITAT Rules: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963). Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon...

FIRC Need Not Match Each Transaction, Periodic Certificate Sufficient If Total Forex Benefit Proven: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) need not correspond to each individual transaction and it may reflect a period as a whole, provided that the overall benefit being claimed is fully substantiated by the total foreign exchange remittance.FIRC is issued by bank as proof of international payments for exports.A division bench comprising...

[S.6 CGST Act] J&K&L High Court Upholds GST Show Cause Notices Based On Intelligence Inputs

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by either the Central or the State tax authorities, irrespective of taxpayer assignment, and such actions do not require a separate notification for cross-empowerment.The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several companies challenging show cause notices issued...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.A division bench comprising ​​justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error...

Tax Monthly Digest: September 2025

SUPREME COURTCustoms Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme CourtCause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of...

Who Is Prescribed Authority For Appeal U/S 54 U.P. Water Supply & Sewerage Act? Allahabad High Court Asks State

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 to decide appeal against the assessment order passed by JaI Sansthan or any other agency under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act. Petitioner, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri,...