Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 03 - March 09, 2025

SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC Decision That Chargers Sold With Cell Phones Cannot Be Taxed Separately Under UP VAT Act 2008Case title: COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXCase no.: U. P. LUCKNOW vs. M/S SAMSUNG (INDIA) ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.| Diary No. - 20066/2021The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008.HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCGoods Not Accompanied By E-Way Bill, Without Matching Description Shows Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High CourtCase Title:- M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commercial Tax And AnotherCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1177 of 2022The Allahabad High Court has held that the intention to evade tax is established by the fact that the goods in transit were not accompanied by e-way bill and the goods taxable at 18% were taxed only at 5%. The Court held that after 2018, it was mandatory for the assesee to download e-way bill with goods in transit. “It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Subsequent downloading of e-way bill would not absolve the liability under the Act.”Bombay HCRestaurant Service Or Bakery Product? Bombay High Court To Decide If Donuts & Cakes Should Be Taxed At 5% Or 18% Under GSTCase Title: M/s. Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2025The Bombay High Court is to decide whether the donuts and cakes should be classified as restaurant service or a bakery product under Goods and Services Tax. The Division Bench of Justices B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla were addressing the issue of whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorized as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.If the donuts and other bakery items classified under restaurant services they would be taxed at 5% and if they classified under bakery product, they would be subjected to tax upto 18%.Delhi HCDelhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Disposal Of Matters Before National Faceless Appeal CentreCase title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 356/2025The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the large number of statutory appeals pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged.”Respondent Cannot File Cross-Objections To Appeal Before High Court U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi High CourtCase title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.Case no.: ITA 320/2023 and batchThe Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal under Section 260A to prefer cross-objections.”Delhi High Court Allows Indigo Airlines' Plea, Holds Levy Of Additional IGST On Repaired & Re-Imported Aircraft Parts To Be UnconstitutionalCase title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batchCase no.: W.P.(C) 934/2023In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional. A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that “additional duty even after the transaction has been subjected to the imposition of a tax treating it to be a supply of service would be clearly unconstitutional and cannot be sustained.”Delhi HC Asks CESTAT To Decide If Tax On Services Purchased By Prepaid Mobile...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 03 - March 09, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags