Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 17 - March 23, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCProceedings U/S 129 Of GST Act Are Summary Proceedings, Burden To Prove Actual Movement Of Goods Lies On Assesee: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1022 of 2021The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation. Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the cogent material. The burden of proof is shifting to the department only in the re-assessment proceeding or subsequent proceeding not being the original proceeding. In other words, the assessee in the original proceeding is duty bound to bring the material on record in support of its claim but in the subsequent proceeding i.e. re-assessment proceedings, the burden shifts on the revenue.”Delhi HCError By Supplier In Mentioning GSTN Of Trader Can't Form Basis To Reject ITC On Purchases: Delhi High CourtCase title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 114/2025The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices. In the facts of the case, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN. Substantial loss would be caused to the Petitioner if the credit is not granted for such a small error on behalf of the supplier.”Delhi High Court Orders Customs Department To Release Arab Minor's Jewellery Which She Wore Since ChildhoodCase title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 2784/2025The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction after perusing a photograph, depicting that she used to wear the said pieces of jewelry since childhood. It observed, “This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, following various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been held clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the same would not be liable to be confiscated.”Customs Dept Repeatedly Told To Serve Notices, Orders On Assessee Via Email: Delhi High Court Seeks ComplianceCase title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 3042/2025The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email. Traditionally, correspondence related to any violation of the Act is made via post. However, with advent of technology and to avoid delays, Court had in Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2024) called upon the Department to send notices via email, in addition to service by speed post, registered post or courier.Delhi High Court To Examine Scope Of Customs Jurisdiction Under E-Cigarettes Act After Seizure Of "De-Addiction" DevicesCase title: Mea Ame Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), New DelhiCase no.: W.P.(C) 3200/2025The Delhi High Court is set to examine the extent of jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Customs Department under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have sought the authority's response on a private company's petition challenging seizure of its imported “empty atomizer devices” purportedly to be put to use for smoking de-addiction.Delhi High Court Slams Directorate General Of Foreign Trade For Cancelling Trader's DEPB License 15 Yrs After SCN Was IssuedCase title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)Case no.: W.P.(C) 7295/2021The Delhi High Court recently quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice. Justice Sachin Datta cited Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) where the Delhi High Court had...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 17 - March 23, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags