Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

SUPREME COURTS.6(2)(b) CGST Act | Central Authority Can Issue Summons Despite State Authority Initiating Proceedings : Supreme CourtCause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.HIGH COURTSAllahabad HC[S.169 CGST Act] Service On Registered Email Is Sufficient For Calculating Limitation Period: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”Bombay HCNo Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High CourtCase Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company LimitedCase Number: SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2010The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed.“HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.Calcutta HCWrit Petition Not Maintainable Against Officer's ITC Finding Made Within Jurisdiction: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.Case Number: WPA 9655 of 2025The Calcutta High Court stated that writ not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction.Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”Income Tax | Interest Earned On Surplus Lending Funds Is Attributable To Banking Business, Qualifies For 80P Deduction: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 KolkataCase Number: ITAT/36/2025The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that interest earned by the West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. on surplus funds from NABARD lending business eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Delhi HCIncome Tax Act | Criminal Complaint For Tax Evasion Filed During Pendency Of Reassessment Proceedings Not Premature: Delhi High CourtCase title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax OfficeCase no.: CRL. M.C. 219/2018The Delhi High Court...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags