Tax Monthly Digest: October 2025
Kapil Dhyani
1 Nov 2025 6:55 PM IST
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Issues Notice To IndiGo On Plea Of Customs Dept & GST Council Against Ruling On IGST Exemption For Imported PartsCase : Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and others v. Interglobe Aviation LtdCase no.: Diary No. 49140-2025The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the...
SUPREME COURT
Case : Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and others v. Interglobe Aviation Ltd
Case no.: Diary No. 49140-2025
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 issued notice to InterGlobe Aviation while hearing the department's plea against the March 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed a portion of a customs notification that mandated IGST payment on the import of repaired aircraft engines and components.
Cause Title: M/S. ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) held that the ink and chemicals used in printing the lottery tickets is a taxable item under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (“Act”).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets and had been taxed on the value of ink and chemicals used in the printing process. While the Appellate Authority and Tribunal set aside the levy holding these materials were consumed rather than a transferrable good, the High Court restored the tax leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court
Case Title: THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTD
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2042-2047/2015
The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.
“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.
Case : Pride Foramer S.A. v Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.
Supreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GST
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 52380/2025
Case Title – Union Of India & Anr. v. M/S Life Sciences Chemicals & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a “transfer of land” or amounts to a “supply of service” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with Centre's plea challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held that assignment of leasehold rights in land and building does not amount to a taxable supply under the GST Act.
Case Title: FEDERATION OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Diary No. 60671/2025
The Federation of Automobile Dealers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking relief related to compensation cess input tax credit worth Rs.2500 crores, which stands locked in dealers ledgers as a consequence of recent revision in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
Briefly put, a notification issued on September 17 scrapped the compensation cess on motor vehicles. This was done, as per the FADA, "without providing any transitional or refund mechanism". Therefore, dealers' accumulated compensation cess lapsed on September 22 and may not be carried forward.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
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, Kanpur is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of sophisticated Aircrafts and other Defence equipments and services and caters to the Defence services in India and is controlled by and works under the Ministry of Defence.
Case Title: U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Versus Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of Revenue Thru.Secy.Andors
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 16125 of 2018
While dealing with a writ petition for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), the Allahabad High Court has held that when the documents for TDS are provided by the assesee, the Assessing Officer must process the refund and cannot delay payment of refund in genuine cases.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held, “a taxpayer should not be left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who chooses to delay the payment of genuine refunds. Furthermore, as long as the assessee is able to provide documents proving that tax has been deducted at source, the same has to be accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot insist that the amount match the figures in Form 26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the amounts provided by the assessee through the proof of Form 16A.”
Allahabad High Court Stays Rs.110 Crore GST Demand On Dabur's Hajmola Candy
Case Title: M/S Dabur India Ltd v Union of India and Ors
Case Number: WRIT TAX No. - 4709 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court on October 10 stayed a ₹110 crore GST show cause notice issued to Dabur India Ltd. over the classification of its Hajmola Candy Tablets.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the interim order in a petition filed by Dabur challenging the DGGI notice issued earlier this year.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2021
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 opined that ….The requirement of a pre-consultative process cannot be dismissed as some empty formality. The master circular and the Circular of 19 November 2020 style this requirement as mandatory in cases where the tax demand exceeds Rs 50 lakhs, unless, of course, the case falls in any of the exceptions. Such circulars bind the Department…
Case Title: Archroma International (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.11226 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the dispute resolution panel (DRP) directions; assessment completed beyond Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit is invalid.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by the DRP in sub-section (5) of Section 144 (C) of the Act. The reason being, Section 144(C)(13) mandates that the Deputy Commissioner ought to complete the assessment in conformity with the direction of the DRP, that too within the strict timelines. Further, Section 144 C (10) makes a clear provision that the directions of the DRP are binding on the Assessing Officer.
Information Regarding GST Returns Of Company Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of Maharashtra
Case no.: Writ Petition 11135 of 2025
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 14) held that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filing cannot be disclosed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of information of GST returns to third parties and that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act too exempts certain information from being made public unless the information officer is satisfied that the said information must be disclosed as a public interest is involved.
Case Title: West India Continental Oils Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3000 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay Rs. 71.31. Lakh interest on refund of illegal IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) collected under RCM (Reverse Charge Mechanism) on ocean freight.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that admittedly, the Petitioner had paid the amount of IGST which the respondents utilized up to the date of grant of refund. Having utilized such amounts of the Petitioner there is no justification, legal or otherwise to deny interest to the Petitioner. To deprive the Petitioner of interest, in the given facts, would run contrary to the well-recognised legal principle of restitution which also finds statutory force under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Title: Shri. Indu Shekhar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.5253 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has granted a stay on the Notification issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade) seeking to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2025, the DGFT, having realised the mistake, issued a fresh Notification rectifying the same.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar were addressing a petition seeking a declaration that Notification No.02/2025-26 dated 2nd April 2025, issued by DGFT to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”, is ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ramelex Private Ltd.
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot rely solely on Sales Tax Department Data for an income tax addition without granting cross-examination.
Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe stated that, "when the VAT assessment was pending adjudication, merely relying on the information of the Sales Tax Department without granting an opportunity to the Assessee to even cross-examine the hawala purchasers to confirm the purchases from them violated the basic facts of law amenating to unfairness and breach of the principles of natural justice in making the addition of Rs.2,05,74,750/- as bogus purchases in hands of the Assessee."
̌Case Title: Balaji Landmarks LLP Eartwhile v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee should not be penalised for the delay in filing the return caused by the chartered accountant's belated advice. The bench noted that the delay is not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee, but to inadequate advice by the Chartered Accountant, a fact admitted by him in his affidavit.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar opined that the Petitioner ought not to be put to a considerable disadvantage as a result of belated advice given to it by the Chartered Accountant, especially when the issue that was being grappled with is fairly complex and for which there were no well-settled judicial precedents at the relevant time.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Cotton Casuals India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPO 1235 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that property tax is a first charge on property and the auction purchaser is liable to pay property tax prior to sale.
The bench stated that where a statutory first charge is created on the property, such as in respect of property tax under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the municipal authority is entitled to enforce such charge independently in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided therein. In such a situation, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the IBC and the KMC Act, and, therefore, the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC is not attracted.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Bharat Aluminum Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WA No. 736 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the ITC is not admissible on electricity supplied to a township maintained by Bharat Aluminium.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal stated that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not admissible on the electricity supplied to the township maintained by Bharat Aluminium/appellant. This is because such supply cannot be said to have been made in the course or furtherance of the appellant's business, as contemplated under Sections 2(17) and 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title: Harish Kumar Chhabada v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 138 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that failure to raise a timely objection to jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act bars the assessee from challenging the assessment.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal stated that the assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit
Case title: AAI v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 643/2024
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 or arbitrary exercise of power in the passing of the adjudication order which warrants interreference under writ jurisdiction.”
Case title: Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi East & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4987/2025
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 justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “FIRCs need not match transaction by transaction and could even be on a periodic basis, so long as the total benefit that is being claimed by a party is fully supported by the foreign exchange which has been remitted to such party.”
Delhi High Court Orders Economic Offences Wing To Probe Alleged Forgery Of Customs Stamps At Airport
Case title: Ms. Puja Jayant & Ors. v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13995/2025
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 gold was fake.
Delhi High Court Asks GST Appellate Tribunal To Examine 'Profiteering' Allegations Against Tata Play
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14422/2022
The Delhi High Court recently asked the GST Appellate Tribunal to re-look into the profiteering allegations levelled against DTH services provider Tata Play.
The direction was made by a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain while dealing with the company's appeal against the show cause notice and consequential order passed against it by the erstwhile National AntiProfiteering Authority (NAPA).
Case title: Megha Engineering And Infrastructure Ltd v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3479/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the Finance Act 2021, which retrospectively abolished the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), responsible for enabling compromise between the state and its tax payers, cannot create a void. For context, the Finance Act 2021 envisaged replacing the ITSC with a body known as the Interim Board of Settlements from 01.02.2021. However, the Act came into force on 01.04.2021.
Thus, the question before the Court was whether settlement applications made in the interregnum, at which point there was no amendment of the statute, can be denied acceptance/processing by way of a retrospective amendment.
Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Anuradha Misra
Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 506/2019
The Delhi High Court has dropped the civil contempt proceedings initiated against a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (now retired) six years ago, for alleged wilful disobedience of its order to give reasons for insisting an assessee to deposit 20% demand in appeal.
The proceedings were initiated suo moto in 2019 on a prima facie opinion but on a closer scrutiny, Justice Vikas Mahajan now found that the Respondent's order though brief, was not bereft of reasons.
Case title: Purshottam Ray v. Principal Commissioner Of CGST & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15118/2025
In order to avoid duplication of GST cases, the Delhi High Court has asked its Registry to add a new field for filing of writ petitions to record DIN (Document Identification Number) and date of order being challenged.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction on observing that multiple writ petitions were being filed challenging same impugned orders, especially in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC (Input Tax Credit).
Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue's Demand Against Casio India In Transfer Pricing Case
Case Name: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 v CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD
Case Number: ITA 505/2025
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a transfer pricing demand against Casio India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese watchmaker, related to advertising, marketing and promotion expenses for the assessment year 2017-18
The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the issue had already been settled in Casio's favour in previous years and therefore requires similar treatment.
Case title: All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9971/2025
The Delhi High Court recently questioned the Central government for effectively withdrawing GST concessions granted to differently-abled persons on purchase of cars. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao asked the standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter and respond by December 17.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries reducing GST rate on vehicles from 28% to 18%, without granting any special concessions for the differently-abled.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar
Case no.: ITA 525/2025 + ITA 526/2025 + ITA 527/2025 + ITA 528/2025 + ITA 531/2025
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department against the firm.
Unsigned GST Demand Order Valid If Accompanied By DRC-07 Bearing Officer's Details: Delhi High Court
Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15611/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with a petition moved by Future Consumer Limited, challenging the demand order on the ground that it does not bear the signature of the official who has passed the order.
S.107 GST Act | Taxpayer Can't Ignore Order Merely Because Copy Was Illegible: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15509/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus refused to condone the taxpayer's delay in filing appeal against a GST demand order merely on the ground that the order supplied to it was illegible. It observed, “The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order-in-Original dated 04th February, 2025 is not a legible order. If so, the Petitioner had a duty to approach the Department and obtain a legible order, if the Petitioner cannot completely ignore the fact that it had received a copy and had not filed an appeal challenging the same.”
Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash
Case title: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11521/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain gave “clear directions to all the Customs Authorities…to ensure that the Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 along with Notification No.23 of 2025-26 shall be implemented strictly in letter and spirit. If any Commissionerate of Customs, are found permitting imports in violation thereof, would be liable for stringent action in accordance with law.”
Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “A perusal of Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly shows that copies of the seized data cannot be denied to the Petitioner. However, such copies can be made in the presence of an Authorised Officer, unless it is recorded in writing, that providing copies would be prejudicial to the investigation.”
Case title: Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15327/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is not an embargo to suits filed by unregistered firms, if any statutory or common law right is being sought to be enforced.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has an embargo on an un-registered firm from filing a suit or any proceeding for enforcement of a right. However, the exceptions to the said provision are carved out in Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr. (2000).”
Case title: Nitco Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Case no.: CUSAA 56/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Customs Housing Agent is responsible for the actions of its employees and it must exercise due diligence in supervising their activities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that a CHA may be held accountable for the wrongdoings of its employee but, the punishment in that regard has to be proportionate.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Agroha Fincap Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 60/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Commissioner's order granting sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for reopening assessment after four years of the relevant Assessment Year (AY) can be in the words— “Yes, I am convinced”.
Section 151(1) of the Act categorically provides that no notice for reassessment shall be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer (AO), after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, unless the Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.
Renting/Leasing Residential Premises For Use As Residence Exempt From GST: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mr. Gurdev Raj Kumar v. Collector Of Stamps (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1463/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that GST cannot be levied on renting/ leasing of residential premises for use as residence.
Justice Sachin Datta clarified thus while dealing with a plea to quash an order passed by the Collector of Stamps directing the petitioner to pay allegedly deficient stamp duty on a lease deed executed with a private company, in respect of a residential property in city's Vasant Vihar area.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹19.5 Crore GST Notice Against PepsiCo
Case Title: M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
Case Number: WP(C)/6960/2023
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed a ₹19.5 crore show cause notice (SCN) issued to food and beverage giant PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under the CGST Act, ruling that the GST department failed to comply with the mandatory process of return scrutiny before initiating tax demand proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, a single bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that the SCN could not have been issued without providing PepsiCo an opportunity to explain its stance.
Case Title: Faiz Ahmed v. The State of AP
Case Number: AB/103/2025
The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused of passing fake ITC worth Rs. 199.31 crores, which was passed to 58 firms across 11 States using fabricated invoices totalling Rs. 658.88 Crores.
Justice Kardak Ete was dealing with the case where the accused persons, led by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, had created a fictitious firm, M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, using forged documents, including a fake seal of JMFC Changlang, Aadhaar, PAN Card, and electricity bills.
Case Title: Dhirghat Hardware Stores and Anr. v. The Union of India and 3 ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/5944/2025
The Gauhati High Court has held that GST Registration can be restored even after expiry of the revocation period if the assessee complies with Rule 22(4) CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax Rules), 2017 requirements.
The Single Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, opined that if the assessee submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the assessee for restoration of GST registration and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the assessee.
Gujarat HC
Income Tax | Manual Filing Of Appeal By NRI Valid For DTVSV Scheme Benefits: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Tejal Mayur Rao v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7839 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court held that the manual filing of an appeal by an NRI is valid for DTVSV (Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024) Scheme Benefits.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi were addressing the case where the petitioner/assessee has challenged the communication issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the declaration made by the assessee under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 ('DTVSV Scheme, 2024'), is rejected on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee was invalid.
Case Title: Vineet Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17720 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court held that statutory interest mandatorily payable under Section 56 GST Act on refunds delayed beyond 60 days.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi stated that the provision of section 56 of the GST Act is a mandatory provision and the interest which is required to be paid under section 56 is compensatory in nature for delayed payment of refund which otherwise is not in dispute.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2010
The Gujarat High Court, while quashing the penalty of Rs. 25.53 Cr. on Hindustan Coca-Cola, stated that the amount of tax could not have been bifurcated by the revenue simply because the sales had been inclusive of tax.
The bench found that there is no evidence on record to show that the assessee had collected any amount by way of tax from its distributors, retailers or customers, as the sales invoice shows the 'Nil' tax in the sales tax column along with the fact that there was an endorsement on the sales invoice that the sales taxes are exempted from payment of tax.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1417 of 2008
The Gujarat High Court stated that the customs commissioner cannot reassess duty on warehoused imports cleared from refineries beyond his jurisdiction.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi agreed with the Tribunal that a proper officer having the administrative jurisdiction over the respective refineries where the goods were removed under section 67 of the Customs Act, 1962, only could have assumed the jurisdiction for reassessment and not the Commissioner, Jamnagar, who can only be considered as proper officer till the goods were permitted to be warehoused on provisional assessment.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
[S.6 CGST Act] J&K&L High Court Upholds GST Show Cause Notices Based On Intelligence Inputs
Case Title: M/s R.K. Spat Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025
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 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Karnataka HC
SARFAESI Charge Created Before GST Charge Takes Precedence Over It: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 103730 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that a SARFAESI charge created prior in time takes precedence over a GST Charge.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that if there is a conflict between the GST Act and the SARFAESI Act (or the RDB Act), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa.
Mens Rea Not Prerequisite For Imposing Penalty U/S 117 Of Customs Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 7 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court held that mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind stated that a plain reading of Section 117 of the Act makes it clear that whenever any person contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to comply therewith, a penalty is attracted. Reading a requirement of mens rea into the provision would amount to rewriting the statute, which is impermissible. Since Section 117, in its plain language, does not indicate the necessity of mens rea. The contrary finding recorded by the CESTAT is incorrect and unsustainable.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 58 OF 2024
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 stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as income from other sources, at the belated stage of the second appeal to the Tribunal, if the venture of the appellants is accepted, that would lead to the revision of the returns voluntarily filed, which is not possible under the statute.
Case Title: K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO.32 OF 2023
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 that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by the Commissioner under Section 94(2) of the Act is independent of the power of the authority to issue clarifications.
Case Title: Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.200 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court held that the assessee is free to challenge the cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in remand proceedings; the tribunal's directions are not binding.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the observation made by the Tribunal is not to be taken as a positive-binding direction on the assessing authority after the remand. An assessment with reference to the provisions of Section 68 is required to be made only when the assessee has no explanation as regards the cash credits in his books of accounts. In the case at hand, the appellant-assessee seems to have offered explanations, with reference to its dealings with the Company, which are more or less business transactions between parties.
Case Title: M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16709 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that printing digital images/letters on paper constitutes services, and attracts 18% GST not 12%. The question before the bench was to determine whether the assessee's printing activities ie. converting the figures, letters, photographs etc., in a digital form, into physical format by printing it on paper were liable to GST at 12% or 18%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined both HSN Code 4911 and SCN 998386 and noted that HSN Code 4911 mainly refers to the supply of goods in the form of printed materials, whereas, the SCN 998386 refers to the photographic and videographic processing services, where the printing of images from film or digital media is specifically included therein.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 42 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.
Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19544 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.
Case Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT
Case Number: ITA NO.51 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the deduction of bad debts. It allows the taxpayer to claim a deduction for bad debts that have been written off in the books of accounts during the previous financial year.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, after referring to the case of Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, opined that there is no requirement for the individual debtor's account to be closed for claiming a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TA NO. 55 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked where the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to address a core issue in the assessment order.
The bench opined that the main issue does not appear to have been addressed by the assessing authority while issuing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the assessment order does not appear to have addressed the issue with reference to the competing provisions, exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act was justified.
Case : Vinod Mukundan and others v. Union of India and others
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 36636/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has granted interim relief to retired employees of the Union Bank by allowing them to renew their group health insurance policies without paying the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the premium.
The Court passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Vinod Mukundan and others, including the All India Union Bank Pensioners & Retirees Federation, challenging the levy of 18% GST on group health insurance policies. While the GST levy on individual health insurance has been completely waived off with effect from September 22, group health insurance policies have not been exempted from GST. The petitioners challenged this as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Madhya Pradesh HC
MP High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Tobacco Company For Stalling GST Proceedings
Case Title: Elora Tobacco Company v Union of India
Case no.: WP-14694-2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed ₹2 lakh costs on an Indore-based tobacco company for attempting to stall the proceedings initiated against it by the GST authorities.
The company came came under the scanner of the Director General of GST Intelligence back in May 2020, following an investigation into large-scale tax evasion in the pan masala and tobacco industry in Indore.
Madras HC
Case Title: P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
Case Number: W.A.Nos.12 and 57 of 2023
The Madras High Court stated that the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) penalty under Section 50 is not applicable for export shortfall below 10%; the exporter can write off unrealised bills.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that even otherwise, since Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is to be read along with Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as admittedly the Appellants/Exporters had failed to realize approximately 5.45% of the export proceeds.
Case Title: M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.4416 of 2022
The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.
The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed with knowledge in this regard, that would not count for the purpose of limitation. It is the date of receipt of the offence report that is material. Such an interpretation alone would be in consonance with the text of Regulation 17."
Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court
Case Title: National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP No. 11222 of 2022
The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act. "It is not known as to where the 1st respondent gets the power and jurisdiction to issue a Public Notice directing the custodians not to collect GST. This direction given by the 1st respondent certainly does not fall within the domain of the customs authorities."
Rajasthan HC
Title: Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors.
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.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Ravi Chirania stated that when the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were pending for more than 6 years, the department must be more concerned with examining and deciding the issue as per law, instead of making the assessee a “shuttlecock”.
TRIBUNALS
CESTAT Quashes ₹56.47 Crore Customs Duty Demand On Dish TV Over Smart Card Classification
Case Name: Videocon D2H Limited/Dish TV v Additional Director General, DRI
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51007 OF 2020
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently set aside a ₹56.47 crore customs duty demand against Videocon D2H Limited (now Dish TV India Ltd) in a dispute over the classification of imported smart cards.
A coram of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Technical Member P V Subba Rao quashed an order dated April 28, 2020, passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI.
Case Title: M/s Professional Examination Board v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52205 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the government examination board is not liable to service tax on examination fees collected from candidates.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that the examination fees collected from the candidates appearing for the examination being conducted by the appellant/assessee cannot be considered as consideration for the supply of manpower recruitment and supply services to the state government departments.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that IRCTC's (Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.) licensing for the operation of food plazas is not liable to service tax under 'renting of immovable property'.
The Tribunal observed that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property. The terms of the agreement make it abundantly clear as to what is the true and actual purpose of the agreement and the relationship between the parties.
Incorrect Declaration In Bill Of Entry Attracts Penalty U/S 114AA Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Nitin Khandelwal v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50914 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that imports and filing of the Bill of Entry are transactions of business under the Customs Act. Section 114AA would squarely apply to those transactions. In this case, the importer filed a Bill of Entry to clear goods imported by it and self-assessed the duty payable on them.
Case Title: M/s Simran Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50268 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that proceedings under Rule 16/16A Drawback Rules are merely execution proceedings; cannot modify value in shipping bills.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the proceedings to recover the drawback under Rules 16/16A of the Drawback Rules are in the nature of execution proceedings, and they cannot be used to modify the value or any other parameter in the Shipping Bills.
Case Title: M/s.Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently held that the arrangement between Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) and private vendors for operating Food Plazas at railway premises does not amount to 'renting of immovable property' and, thus, does not attract service tax under that category.
A two-member coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P V Subba Rao held that the agreements were not lease transactions but business arrangements based on revenue sharing.
Case Title: M/s. Dynamic Infratech v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20455 of 2023
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that a show cause notice cannot be issued solely based on voluntary disclosure by the assessee under the SVLDRS Scheme [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019].
The bench, consisting of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member), agreed with the Commissioner that even though documents were placed before the authorities concerned, the original authority confirmed the demand only based on the SVLDRS Form-1 filed by the assessee, which is non-existent as per Clause 2(c) of Section 129 of the SVLDR Scheme.
Assessment Order Not Void Solely Because It Was Passed in Deceased's Name: ITAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Late Shri Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera v ITO, Kurukshetra
Case Number: ITA No. 1151/Chd/ 2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, recently held that an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), reassessing the income tax liability of an assessee, is not invalid merely because it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal noted that since the appeal itself was filed under the deceased's name, the order cannot be quashed on that ground alone.
Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed, “since the appeal before the CIT(A) itself was instituted in the name of Sh. Lakha Singh and not in the name of his legal heir, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be vitiated merely because it was passed in the name of the deceased. Assuming for a moment that the order of the CIT(A) were to be treated as erroneous for this reason, even in that eventuality the order of the Assessing Officer would remain undisturbed and would continue to operate against the assessee”.
Case no.: Advance Ruling No. 37/ARA/2025
The Authority for Advance Ruling of Tamil Nadu recently held that Minimum Guaranteed Off-take (MGO) charges collected by ONGC from GAIL for short-lifting natural gas are not liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST).
In a clarification key for the oil and gas sector, the authority ruled that these charges are in the nature of liquidated damages for breach of contract and do not constitute a taxable “supply” under GST law.
Revenue Sharing Arrangements Not Taxable As Service U/S 65(90a) Of Finance Act: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52667 OF 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue-sharing arrangements are not taxable as a service under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property.
Case Title: M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50208 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that crowd-sourced information available on platforms like Wikipedia cannot be relied upon to fasten tax liability on the assessee.
The Tribunal opined that Wikipedia is an open source information available online and anyone can write about the topic and anyone else can edit it. Thereafter, somebody else can further edit it. It is not the opinion of any one expert but is only crowd-sourced information.
Advance Received Towards Sale Of Land Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Suwalka & Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52874 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount of advance received by the assessee with respect to the sale of land is out of the scope of applicability of the provisions of the Finance Act, and hence, no service tax is leviable.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) stated that the assessee has successfully established that the activity undertaken with reference to the amount in question pertains to the sale of immovable property, and as such, he was not liable to pay any service tax on the amount received as an advance towards that sale.
Mumbai ITAT Quashes ₹445 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment Against Netflix India
Case title: Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 23(1), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No.6857/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has recently set aside a Rs 445 crore transfer pricing adjustment on Netflix India for financial year 2021-22, rejecting the Revenue's claim that the company, as a licensee of its streamed content, owed higher taxes.
The authorities had imposed the tax because they treated Netflix India, the Indian arm of US-based streaming giant Netflix, as a licensee of Netflix US's intellectual property. They claimed the company owed deemed royalty and license fees for using the content library and proprietary streaming technology in India, far higher than Netflix India's declared fixed profit of just 1.36% on Indian sales.
Case Title: Royal Blankets v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51721 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an Excel sheet recovered from the email account of the assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that Section 138C applies only when the document is printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand Against Wipro Over Tamil Nadu Govt's Free Laptop Scheme
Case Title: Wipro Ltd.v The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40803 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai on Wednesday quashed the excise department's demand for additional duty from Wipro Ltd., ruling that the company's supply of laptops to the Tamil Nadu government for free distribution to students cannot be treated as a commercial sale and therefore cannot be taxed at retail price.
A two-member bench comprising Judicial Member P Dinesha and Technical Member M Ajit Kumar said the case was covered by an earlier decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the PG Electroplast matter where it was held that that the free distribution of colour TVs to poorer sections on behalf of the government can't be called a commercial activity.
Case Title: M/s. Ericsson India Private Limited v. Additional Director General
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50439 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for technical know-how is not a 'condition of sale' merely because it is included in the value of imported goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemembika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that both the Technical Agreements relate to transfer of technical know-how, amongst others, in the form of design sheets detailing manufacturing methods and specifications of raw materials for all the components used in the manufacture/assemble or the products and the payment on royalty is not a condition of sale of imported goods and in fact relates to post import activities.
SSI Exemption Can't Be Denied Merely For Using Common/Assigned Brand Names: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Aashish Enterprises v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42303 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that SSI (Small Scale Industry) Exemption can't be denied merely for using common/assigned brand names.
The Tribunal opined that once a brand name is legally assigned or transferred, the SSI unit becomes the “owner” of the brand. Therefore, it is no longer the “brand name of another person,” and the restriction in Condition No. 4 of Notification No. 8/2003-CE does not apply.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CJI BR Gavai on Wednesday said that the eligibility criteria for appointment of senior practitioners at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be timely, where their experience can be applied effectively and not at the very end of their careers.
Underscoring that the appointment procedures at ITAT must remain transparent, CJI said: “Eligibility criteria should be adapted to attract senior practitioners at a point in their careers where their experience can be effectively applied, rather than deferring appointments to the very end of their professional lives.”
CBDT Extends Deadlines For Filing Of Income Tax Return In Audit Cases For A.Y. 2025-26
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the due date of furnishing of the Return of Income and tax audit reports for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2025-26.
The revised due dates for submitting audit reports and Income Tax Returns are November 10, 2025 and December 10, 2025, respectively.