Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 24 - November 30, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
1 Dec 2025 6:35 PM IST
SUPREME COURT'Seems Tax Department Has Not Trusted Even Its Lawyers' : Supreme Court Flags Procedural Delays In IT Dept's Petition FilingsCause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABADThe Supreme Court recently criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that...
SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD
The Supreme Court recently criticised the Income Tax Department for filing its Special Leave Petition after a delay of 524 days, observing that the Department, despite having an entire team of legal experts, failed to act on its own lawyers' advice and instead allowed time to be wasted in unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Department's explanation for the massive delay, noting that "no one in the Department is taking care to shorten the process" for filing appeals within the statutory timeframe.
Supreme Court Leaves Open Question Whether Customs Can Seize Goods Which Left Port
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO VERSUS EPSILON EYE CARE PVT. LTD.
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) view that once goods are cleared from the port, customs authorities lose their power to confiscate them for violations such as non-compliance with license requirements.
However, the bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan left open the question whether the Customs Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port.
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Income Tax Department for filing yet another Special Leave Petition (SLP) in a matter already settled by the Court, calling it a frivolous exercise that contributes to mounting pendency.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing an SLP challenging a Karnataka High Court order on tax deduction at source (TDS) liability, an issue the Supreme Court had already decided last year in a case involving Vodafone Idea, holding that payments made to non-resident telecom operators were not liable for TDS.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: M/s Gospell Press Thru. Partner Mr. Rajiv Goyal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax LKO And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1283 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that notices under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for confiscation and levy of penalty, could not be issued for alleged violation of maintenance of accounts and records as required under Section 35 of the Act.
It was held that such notices under Section 130 could only be issued once the department had determined the liability of tax under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.
Cannot Cancel GST Registration Without Passing Reasoned Speaking Order: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while cancelling GST registrations, authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders. It held that doing otherwise would render the order unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
“Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any proper notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.
Case Title: M/S Sun Glass Works Private Limited v. The State of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2192 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that nothing under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the relevant rules, and notifications, allows the authorities to reserve judgements on the fixed date and pass them later, especially without informing the assessee.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply but the respondent passed an order levying tax and penalty, without providing the relevant materials or an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: M/s Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of UP and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not be invoked where excess stock was found at the time of survey
While dealing with a case regarding a search conducted under the GST Act, where upon finding discrepancies, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under S. 130 of the Act, Justice Piyush Agarwal held, “A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.”
Case Title: M/S Anil Art And Craft Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 5924 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the cancellation of GST registration of a business entity leads to it economic death and it is sine qua non that a reasoned order is passed by the authority for cancelling the registration of an assesee.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed: “We are equally mindful that the order of cancellation of registration causes deep adverse impact on the conduct of business of any registered individual. Neither the petitioner shall remain entitled to issue Tax Invoices nor may be entitled to avail tax ITC or to pass on ITC. Under the GST regime, it announces the economic death of the business entity.”
Case Title: M/S Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that under GST Act, the department cannot proceed against an assessee for transport of goods, if a genuine e-way bill is present along with the consignment.
Justice Piyush Agarwal held that this would be especially impermissible if the validity of the e-way bill was not disputed by the authorities.
Bombay HC
Case Title: M/s Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012
The Bombay High Court has held that the assignment of the well-known trademark “Crocin” by Duphar Interfran Ltd. to SKB Plc (UK) amounted to a sale “in the course of export” of intangible goods, and therefore could not be taxed as a local sale within the State of Maharashtra under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a Sales Tax Reference overturned the view of the Sales Tax Tribunal and held that the situs of an intangible property follows the situs of its owner (mobilia sequuntur personam) and thus, the assignment of the trademark amounted to export, attracting the bar under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Charity Fund Vs. Income Tax, Officer (Exemption)
Case No. Writ Petition No. 4941 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 & 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated to re-open issues that were already scrutinized and accepted during the original assessment, observing that a mere change of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer does not constitute reason to believe nor permit reassessment.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, while deciding a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148, which alleged that the assessee failed to specify the purpose of income accumulation under Section 11(2) in Form 10. The Bench stated that in the present case, all the material particulars and documents were before the Assessing Officer when the original assessment was conducted. There is no new material before the Revenue, nor are there any new facts or information to justify the reopening of the assessment.
Case Title: M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11118 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that an importer cannot be made liable to pay customs duty on goods that were never cleared for home consumption and were never received by the importer. The Court observed that, under Sections 13, 23 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, duty paid in anticipation of clearance becomes refundable once it is established that the goods were short-landed or lost before clearance.
A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was hearing a petition filed by M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. challenging the rejection of its refund claim for ₹35,37,358/–, paid as customs duty for 100 metric tons of PVC Resin imported under a Bill of Entry dated 27 April 2022. The petitioner had paid the full duty but never received the consignment.
Case Title: Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs. Citron Infraprojects Limited AADCC3733C
Case No: Income Tax Appeal(L) No. 34357 of 2024 and connected matters
The Bombay High Court has held that prior approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is not a mere technical or procedural formality, and that mechanical, en masse sanction without application of mind vitiates the entire assessment under Section 153A.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while deciding a batch of over 60 Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue led by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4, dismissed the appeals at the admission stage, affirming the ITAT's ruling which had set aside assessments framed against the assesses, Citron Infra projects Limited, Helios Mercantile Limited, SVP Global Textiles Limited, Shri Vallabh Pittie South West Industries, and other connected entities.
Case Title: Evershine Enterprises Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3138 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is mandatorily required to verify and consider pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigation under Form SVLDRS-3 (final statement issued by the Designated Committee showing the exact amount payable by the taxpayer under the Scheme)
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the SVLDRS-3 demand statement from the assessee without adjusting tax already recovered and pre-deposits made. The Court stated that mere non-availability of challans cannot be a ground to disregard material produced within the permissible timeline. The Court observed that issuing SVLDRS-3 without such verification is contrary to Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which mandates adjustment of past payments.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Multireach Media Private limited & Anr Vs The state of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No: WPA No. 209333 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has held that where an adjudication order under the GST regime is uploaded on the GST Portal only under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the primary “View Notices and Orders” tab the resulting delay in filing appeal is to be condoned, considering that taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to check multiple tabs for final orders.
A Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while hearing a writ petition filed under the WBGST/CGST Act, directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits by condoning the delay, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹15,000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Title: Laxmi Ghosh v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 20364 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has stated that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) ITC (Input Tax Credit) declared in GSTR-9 can be set off against tax demand if missed in the monthly GSTR-3B.
Justice Om Narayan Rai bench observed that the appellate authority did not justify why the IGST ITC declared in GSTR-9 could not be set off against the tax demand.
Case Title: Rajneesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)
Case Number: WPO/398/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that the Income Tax Department cannot withhold a refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless it establishes tax liability.
The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that it is true that Section 245 of the said Act authorises the Income Tax Department to set off a refund against remaining tax payable. Unfortunately, in this case, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate that any amount is payable or is due from the assessee. Law does not sanction recovery of tax in the absence of any specific charging statutory provision.
Delhi HC
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd
Case no.: ITA 494/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “Once the assessee discharges its initial onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and also the genuineness of the transaction, it is not incumbent upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the funds at the hands of its lender, i.e., the “source of the source” of the funds.”
Case Detail: A AND T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi, West
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a writ petition against the Show Cause Notice by the Customs Department, instead of the GST Department, for recovery of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to about Rs. 5 lakhs from the exporter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has listed the matter for February 24, 2026 while observing that “However, insofar as the question as the inter-play between the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the IGST Act and CGST Act is concerned, the matter requires consideration.”
Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17680/2025
The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Saurabh Banerjee while hearing Petitioner-firm's challenge to dismissal of its appeal against demand on the ground of it being barred by delay.
Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16741/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.
The Petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm, who has a dealership agreement with M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in respect of domestic & commercial Liquified Petroleum Gas for a period of 10 years.
Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16724/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain said, “the Petitioner cannot be rendered completely remediless in this matter as he may have proceeded on the legal advice.”
Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16137/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.
For context, Section 110 deals with Seizure of goods. It stipulates that where any goods are seized, and no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods shall be returned. Provided that the Principal Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months.
Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15791/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.
“Statements under Section 108 would not be admissible in evidence,” said a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16345/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with a challenge to detention of Petitioner's gold chain weighing 54 grams.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers
Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3542/2025 (and connected petition)
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.
Petitioners' import goods were confiscated for alleged mis-declaration of sex toys as body massagers. While ordering their provisional release, the Court had previously asked the Department to come up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of such products.
Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case No: W.P(C) No. 5464/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a writ petition filed by Navin Road Lines, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) refusing to entertain the Service Tax appeal on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit was not made under the Service Tax head, even though the assessee had already deposited ₹1,49,190 under the Excise category.
Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17699/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further criticised the GST Appellate Authority, which upheld the cancellation in a 'cavalier' manner. The judges remarked, “The present petition reveals a sad situation where a reputed company is being made to deal with an unjustified cancellation of its GST registration…There is no reason given in the impugned order as to why the documents filed by the Petitioner were not considered, except stating that your reply is not considerable…An Adjudicating Authority has to show basic fairness, especially in the case of companies which are regular tax payers and who have filed the replies in time along with the requisite documents.”
Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.
Perusing the language in which the provision is couched, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “...it uses the word 'shall'. However, the provision also stipulates that the said period is to be adhered where it is possible to do so.”
Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body
Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17694/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing the plea of a foreign education consultancy company, whose appeals for tax refund have been pending since four long years.
Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16754/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held the challenge to the SCN as 'premature' and noted existence of a clandestine server that revealed a parallel accounting system and modus operandi of the Petitioner. The High Court deliberated upon GST evasion of more than Rs. 88 crores through suppressing income, dual books, underpriced invoices, statutory audit records, digital devices including WhatsApp communication as set out in the Show Cause.
Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17500/2025
The Delhi High Court recently said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).
Vide the said decision, the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain had held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness
Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16974/2025
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, after considering the facts of the case and on the basis of the medical records, were of the view that the lapse was “bonafide”.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return
Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17379/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar remarked, “Surely it should not take nine months to realize that initial ITR has some mistakes, which requires a revised return.”
Gujarat HC
Case Detail: Shah Paper Plast Industries Limited & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 18892 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the Petitioners—100% EOUs exporting goods without payment of tax—were entitled to refund of unutilised ITC under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(4), and that their exports did not fall within the category of “deemed exports.”
The Court ruled that Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) were inapplicable, quashed the withdrawal and recovery of refunds issued under Section 73, rejected the retrospective reclassification of zero-rated supplies as deemed exports, and directed restoration of refunds within 12 weeks while leaving broader questions of law on refund scrutiny and recovery open.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2023 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that the assessee's payment of Rs. 10 crores could not be treated as a voluntary payment under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act), as the DRC-03 shows 'NIL' entries for both interest and penalty. The bench observed that the 'NIL' entries clearly indicated that the payment was made by the assessee under coercion and under the threat of arrest.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that prior to the search and inspection conducted by the department, they did not issue any notice to the assessee nor were any proceedings to ascertain, adjudicate or determine the tax, interest and penalty payable by the assessee which indicates that there was no occasion for the assessee to pay the said sum voluntarily by way of self-ascertainment to the department, thereby indicating that the said amount was not paid voluntarily by the assessee.
Kerala HC
Case Title: State Bank Of India v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.45 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the State Bank of India (SBI) cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments, as it was bound by an interim order which prohibited such deduction.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon examined whether the SBI, having been restrained by an interim order of the High Court from deducting TDS, could be held to be an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Orders New PAN For Assessee After Dept-Issued Duplicate PAN Ruins CIBIL Score
Case Title: S. Senthil v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.21548 of 2022
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a fresh PAN (Permanent Account Number) to the assessee, who suffered adverse consequences because the defaulter holding the same PAN had a bad CIBIL. The bench held that the assessee cannot be made to bear serious CIBIL consequences arising from the Income Tax Department's duplicate PAN allotment.
Justice C. Saravanan stated that the PAN that was allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007 was also erroneously allotted to the said person, namely Subramaniyan Senthil S/o. Subramaniyan. Although the said person has been given a new identity, the mistakes committed by the said person have affected the assessee, as the identity of the assessee and his financial transactions are traceable to the PAN that was originally allotted to the assessee on 18.05.2007, which is in the cloud.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another
Case Number: CWP-28440-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) to issue a circular extending the ITR (Income Tax Return) due date for audit cases to 30.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2025-2026.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta were addressing a petition filed by the assessee/petitioner seeking a direction to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing of tax audit reports for a reasonable period from 30.09.2025 and, consequently, to further extend the due date for filing tax returns.
Tripura HC
Case Title: M/s North East Carrying Corporation Ltd.(NECC) Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 36-37 of 2025
The Tripura High Court has held that where show-cause notices imposing penalty under Section 77 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act) were issued after delay of 9 years, long after the repeal of the TVAT Act after GST Regime, are arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by malafides. The Court further held that the State cannot retain the security deposit taken for VAT registration once the GST regime does not mandate a security deposit for transporters.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha was hearing writ petitions filed by the assessee, challenging multiple show-cause notices and penalty orders issued under Section 77 of the repealed TVAT Act, along with the non-refund of the Rs.12 Lacs. security deposit originally deposited in 2013 at the time of VAT registration.
TRIBUNALS
Peanut Butter Similar To Margarine; Not Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 27780 of 2013
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Peanut Butter is similar to Margarine in terms of usage, origin, fat content, etc. and therefore not eligible for excise duty exemption.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) examined whether Peanut Butter could be considered similar to Margarine. If found similar, then it would not be exempt from excise duty; and if not similar, the exemption would apply.
Case Title: DCIT, Circle- 41(3)(1) Mumbai Vs. Deepak Shah
Case No: ITA No. 3870/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that where purchases are conclusively proven to be bogus and the assessee fails to substantiate the genuineness of suppliers, the entire purchase amount must be added to income and the benefit of estimating profit element cannot be applied.
A Bench of Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Accountant Member) was hearing a Revenue appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to 15% on the ground that sales were not doubted. The Bench reversed the partial relief and restored 100% addition in respect of four purchase parties.
GSTAT Drops Proceedings Against Eclat Serum Supplier After DGAP Fails To Trace Gujarat Firm
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Shree Suktam Enterprise
Case Number: NAPA/157/PB/2025
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi recently dropped anti profiteering proceedings against Shree Suktam Enterprise, a Gujarat supplier in the chain of biotech company S R Lifesciences. The tribunal observed that the Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) was unable to trace the firm or obtain evidence to determine whether the benefit of a 10 percent GST rate reduction on the skin care product Eclat Serum 30gm, used in dermatological treatment, had been passed on to consumers.
In an order dated November 12, 2025 delivered by Technical Member A Venu Prasad, the tribunal observed that there was no basis to continue proceedings after multiple attempts to secure records and serve notices failed, resulting in the inability to determine any profiteering liability.
Case Titled: DGAP Vs. Gopal Teknocon Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: NAPA/15/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, has held that when a contractor voluntarily remits the residual input tax credit (ITC) benefit identified by the Directorate General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP) to its principal, no separate anti-profiteering action is required under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
A Bench of GSTAT, Principal Bench, comprising of Justice Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member) was hearing appeal filed by the Directorate General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP) on the issues: whether the respondent failed to pass on the benefit of ITC or tax‐rate reduction to its recipient in violation of Section 171(1) CGST Act and the Anti-Profiteering Rules; whether DGAP's computation is acceptable.
Revenue Cannot Treat Turnover Mismatch As Duty Evasion Without Examining On Merits: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Gold Seal Engineering Products Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 87141 of 2023
The CESTAT Mumbai has held that when an assessee shows sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal within the statutorily permissible condonable period of 30 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot reject the appeal on limitation without examining the merits.
A Bench of the CESTAT comprising of Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban was hearing the appeal, challenging the order of the Commissioner(Appeal) whereby appeal of the assessee was dismissed as time-barred by 26 days and thereby the automatic confirmation of differential duty demand of ₹2,64,039 along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1 Crore Interest, Penalty On Hindustan Zinc For Reversed CENVAT Credit
Case Detail: Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. The Commissioner
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside disallowance of CENVAT credit as well as interest and penalty worth about Rs. 1 crore for electricity wheeled out to sister concerns as well as to State Electricity Board.
In an order dated November 24, 2025, the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (Principal Bench) and Smt. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) set aside six orders, notices creating excise duty demand on input and input services used in Captive Power Plant for generation of electricity. As for electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, the CESTAT from order passed by the Commissioner inferred that CENVAT credit had been reversed on monthly basis prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.
No Service Tax On Income Received From Joint Venture: CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹5.72 Crore Demand
Case Title: M/s. Rahee Infratech Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76709 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an assessee's/partner's share of income from a joint venture is not consideration for any taxable service and therefore not liable to Service Tax.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the activities undertaken by a partner/co-venturer for the mutual benefit of the partnership/joint venture cannot be regarded as a service rendered by one person to another for consideration and therefore cannot be taxed.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has called for information on Non-Tariff Measures and certification requirements to be submitted within 7 days of issuance of this Trade Notice through an online form.
To facilitate easy access to export credit, cross-border factoring support, the Export Promotion Mission (EPM) was announced in the Union Budget 2025-26.
Tamil Nadu Govt Waives E-Way Bill Requirement For Mahindra & Mahindra's Demo Cars With Trade Plate
The Government of Tamil Nadu has waived the requirement for generating E-way Bill for vehicles sent by Mahindra & Mahindra for road testing.
Mahindra & Mahindra in a representation sought for waiving off requirement of E-way bill for motor vehicles for road testing under Rule 138A (5) of MGST Rules, 2017.
The CBI has arrested a lawyer as well as a judicial member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur for allegedly indulging in corrupt practices.
As per the agency's post on X, the agency has busted a "criminal network" stated to involve an advocate as well as a judicial member of ITAT, Jaipur, an assistant registrar of the tribunal, and other unknown public servants and private persons for "indulging in corrupt practices" in connection with "settling appeals in ITAT bench, Jaipur" in favour of a party in "lieu of bribe".