Tax Monthly Digest: May 2025

SUPREME COURTGST | Bail Should Be Normally Granted For Offences Under S 132 CGST Act Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Exists : Supreme CourtCase : Vineet Jain vs Union of IndiaCase no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2025The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at the High Court and the Magistrate Court denying bail to a person accused of committing offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.The Court observed that in cases like this, bail should normally be granted. The offences alleged against the appellant were under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine.Customs Act | Engineering Services Fees Having Direct Nexus With Import Of Goods Fall Within Assessable Customs Value : Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOLKATACase no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8028 OF 2010The Supreme Court yesterday (May 1) ruled that engineering and technical service fees paid by the importer must be included in the assessable value of imported spare parts under the Customs Act, 1962.The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld that the 8% technical and engineering fee charged to the appellant(Coal India) should be included in the assessable value for determining customs duty.Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of S.5A, Kerala General Sales Tax Act and S.7A, Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax ActCase Title: C.T. KOCHOUSEPH VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 941 – 945 OF 2004 (and connected cases)Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. "The challenge to the constitutional validity must be rejected on the basis of the ratio elucidated by this Court in Kandaswami (supra), Hotel Balaji (supra) and Devi Dass (supra)...Hotel Balaji (supra) specifically upholds the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, disagreeing with the opinion/ratio expressed in Goodyear (supra)", said a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, R Mahadevan.Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Clarifies Restriction Under S.80-IA(9) On Claiming Cumulative Deductions Under S.80IA & 80-HHCCase title: Case Title: Shital Fibers Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax (and connected cases)Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.14318 OF 2015Answering a reference, the Supreme Court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Income Tax Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the verdict while answering a reference after a matter was referred to the larger bench due to split verdict in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Micro Labs Limited (2015) on the issue of whether deductions claimed under Section 80-IA/80-IB (for industrial profits in certain categories) and Section 80-HHC (for export profits) could be cumulatively allowed.Supreme Court Upholds Kerala's Luxury Tax On Cable TV As Constitutionally ValidCase Title: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORS.Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9301 OF 2013The Supreme Court today (May 22) upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and allowed Kerala's appeal, affirming the state's power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”The Court clarified that the service tax imposed by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not conflict with state taxes on entertainment, and therefore, no constitutional overlap exists between central and state levies.Supreme Court Upholds Dual Taxation On Broadcasting, Says States Can Levy Entertainment Tax Alongside Centre's Service TaxCase Title: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORS. (and connect cases)Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9301 OF 2013While upholding the State's authority to impose entertainment tax on broadcasting services like cable TV, digital streaming, and OTT platforms, the Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State are empowered to levy service tax and entertainment tax, respectively, on assessees such as cable operators and entertainment service providers.The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh held that broadcasting constitutes a form of communication, while entertainment falls under the category of luxuries as outlined in Entry 62 of List II. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, it reasoned that entertainment can be delivered through means of communication, making broadcasting merely incidental to it. As such, it does not directly encroach upon matters within the Union List. Consequently, both...

Tax Monthly Digest: May 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags