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

SUPREME COURTIncome Tax Act | Rejection Of Settlement Application Does Not Affect Assessee's Right To Contest Assessment Order On Merits : Supreme CourtCause Title: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 SURAT VERSUS M. D. INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.Rejection of an assessee's settlement application by the Income Tax Settlement Commission without offering settlement terms does not bar the assessee's right to challenge the assessment order on merits under the Income Tax Act, observed the Supreme Court."The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.", a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said, dismissing the department's appeal.HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Cannot Pass Ex-Parte Orders Without Recording Reasons For Denying Adjournment: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCase no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 77 of 2025While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing.“While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the proceedings is a goal that all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities may pursue, at the same time, they may remain conscious of their non-negotiable commitment to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before such judicial decision making is achieved,” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.Predominant Purpose Of Industry Is Essential For Determining Bracket Of Cess Taxation: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/s Century Laminating Company Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager v. Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control BoardCase no.: WRIT - C No. - 1001686 of 2004The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry.“In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or incidental process carried on by a particular industry in running its business,” held Justice Irshad Ali.GST Authorities Cannot Assume Jurisdiction For Passing Adverse Orders For Work Concluded Under VAT Regime: Allahabad High CourtCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1021 of 2025 Case name: M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor v. State of U.P. and 3 othersThe Allahabad High Court has held that GST Authorities cannot claim jurisdiction for levying tax, penalty, and interest on work that was concluded prior to the implementation of the GST Act.Notices were issued to the petitioner, a work contractor, for the Financial Year 2018-19 under the GST Act. The petitioner was unable to reply to the notices in time. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed, levying tax, penalty and interest on him. Aggrieved, he sought relief before the High Court.Suspension Of State Tax Officer For Delayed Report Unjustified When Authority Failed To Act In GST Fraud Case: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 OthersCase no.: WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.He held that, despite the fact that the petitioner submitted the report with delay, the authority to take action was the Assistant Commissioner. It was held that the petitioner could not be suspended in a case where the appropriate authority chose not to cancel the GST registration of the firm in question.Bombay HCS.74 Finance Act Cannot Be Invoked To Seek Redetermination Of Service Tax Liability: Bombay High CourtCASE NUMBER: WRIT PETITION NO. 6467 OF 2025CASE TITLED:M/S SUMAN S. CONSTRUCTION VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.On November 14th, 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Suman Construction (“assessee” hereinafter), a government-registered civil contractor, which had challenged the service tax demand raised on road construction works for government ...

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

Kapil Dhyani

Tags