Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 02 - June 08, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCAllahabad High Court Rejects Patanjali's Plea Against ₹273.5 Crore GST PenaltyCase Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited v. Union of India and OthersCase no.: WRIT-TAX NO. 1603 OF 2024The Allahabad High Court has directed continuation of proceedings under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited's 3 plants even though proceedings under Section 74 of the Act have been dropped against them.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held, “Under the present GST regime, persons who are not liable to pay tax under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act may very well be liable for penalties as described in the twenty-one sub-sections of Section 122(1) and under sub-sections 122(2) and 122(3).”Delhi HCS.161 CGST Act | Rectification Order Must Be Reasoned, Adverse Order Can Be Passed Only After Hearing Party: Delhi High CourtCase title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.Case no.: W.P.(C) 5901/2025The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.[Income Tax] Delhi HC Larger Bench To Decide On Retrospective Applicability Of Extended Limitation For Reassessment In Cases Involving Foreign AssetsCase title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)Case no.: W.P.(C) 2068/2015 (and batch)A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia expressed disagreement with a coordinate bench decision in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others (2018) where it was held that provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act would not have any retrospective operation. It was of the view that the above decision was passed in ignorance of Explanation to Section 149, which clarified that the provision would be applicable for “any assessment year” beginning on or before 1st day of April 2012.Himachal Pradesh HCNotice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act Can't Be Issued Without Giving Proper Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.Case No.: CWP No. 3681 of 2024Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, can't be issued by the assessing officer without giving proper reasons.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja : “The Assessing Officer needs to realise that notice under Section 148 does have serious civil or evil consequences and cannot be passed so lightly and reasons for the same have to be recorded in the order itself.”Kerala HCAbsence Of Formal Demand Notice For Property Tax During Pendency Of Litigation Does Not Absolve Assessee's Obligation To Pay: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of CochinCase Number: WA NO. 2085 OF 2023The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee's obligation to pay such tax.The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”Import Of Inverter Component Without Photo-Voltaic Cell Not Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CustomsCase Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2024The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification…” stated the Division Bench of...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 02 - June 08, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags