Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 10 - November 16, 2025

SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund AppealCase Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service TaxCase Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 57088/2025The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.Transfer Of Title In Immovable Property Doesn't Attract Service Tax : Supreme CourtCase : Commissioner of Service Tax v M/s Elegant DevelopersThe Supreme Court has clarified that an activity which merely involves the transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale cannot be treated as a “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, such transactions lie outside the ambit of service tax.A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi against M/s Elegant Developers, a partnership firm based in Allahabad. The Revenue had challenged a 2019 decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had set aside a tax demand of over Rs 10 crore against the firm.Externally Procured Parts Supplied To Customer For Assembly, But Not Used By Manufacturer, Aren't Liable To Excise Duty : Supreme CourtCause Title: LIPI BOILERS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABADThe Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) dismissed the Revenue Department's excise duty demand against a company that had manufactured and erected a large boiler at a customer's site, holding that the full contract value could not be subjected to central excise duty. The Court clarified that parts bought out externally and supplied to the customer for assembly, but not actually used by the manufacturer, would not attract excise duty.“we arrive at the finding that the final product that emerges as a result of performing the obligations under the contract, does not constitute excisable goods under the Act, 1944. Consequently, the base value of the boiler on which excise duty is to be levied, cannot be equated with the total contract price. Therefore, the price of the bought out parts cannot be included in the value of the boiler for the purpose of computing central excise duty under the Act, 1944.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta while allowing the company's appeal against the CESTAT order which upheld the Revenue's demand for additional excise duty on bought out item.Supreme Court Upholds View That Eden Gardens Not A 'Public Place' For Levy Of Advertisement TaxCase Title: THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. Versus THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL AND ORS.Case no.: SLP(C) No. 28566/2025The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Calcutta High Court order which held that Eden Gardens stadium was not a "public place" for the purpose of levying advertisement tax under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for petitioner-Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for respondents.HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCCENVAT Rules Cannot Apply Retrospectively To Concluded MODVAT Proceedings: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Modi Rubber Limited v. Union Of India And 2 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 872 of 2021Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that where proceedings under the MODVAT (Modified Value Added Tax) Scheme had concluded prior to the introduction of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Rules, it would not be open to the revenue department to issue fresh notices against the assessee under the new scheme.The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that, "The changed law did not make any specific provision to enable the revenue authorities to initiate a fresh proceedings, where earlier proceedings had already been initiated and concluded under the MODVAT scheme. Therefore, the revenue authority did not acquire the jurisdiction to issue the second Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.1998, on the issue that stood concluded by earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2000.”UPGST Rules | Reason To Believe Must Be Reduced In Writing While Operating Under Rule 86A: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr.Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4654 of 2025The Allahabad High Court has held that while acting under Rule 86A of the UPGST Rules, authorities must record 'reason to believe' in 'writing'. It held that not doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the Rule.“It may not forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 10 - November 16, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags