Tax Weekly Round-Up: April 28 - May 04, 2025

SUPREME COURTCentral Excise Tariff Act | Test Reports Justifying Reclassification Must Be Disclosed to Manufacturer : Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI – IICase no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 129-130 OF 2011The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as the test report used to justify the reclassification of the petrochemicals, which led to the higher duty.GST | 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.HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCClaims Of GST Department Are Barred Once Resolution Plan Is Approved: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1716 of 2025Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, the Allahabad High Court has held that the claims of Goods and Service Tax Department are barred after the aproval of resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held, “In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process. The Supreme Court has categorically held the same as indicated above.”Mandatory To Fill Part B Of E-Way Bill In Transactions After April 2018: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1559 of 2024Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the assesee to download the complete E-way Bill including Part-B of the E-way Bill for transactions after April 2018. Distinguishing the earlier judgment of the High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others, and others, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was given to those assesses. It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the complete e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Only downloading Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”Order U/S 75(6) Of GST Act Must Be Self-Contained, Mere References To SCNs Is Not Sufficient: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and anotherCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 606 of 2025The Allahabad High Court has held that order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 must be self-contained and mere reference to previous show cause notices is not sufficient.The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: April 28 - May 04, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags