Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 24 - November 30, 2025

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 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 PortCause 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.'Frivolous Cases Waste Judicial Time' : Supreme Court Raps Income Tax Dept For Filing SLP On Settled IssueThe 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 COURTSAllahabad HCUPGST Act | Confiscation Notice U/S 130 Cannot Be Issued For Mere Violation Of Record-Maintenance Requirements U/S 35: Allahabad HCCase 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 2025Recently, 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 CourtCase Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors.Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025The 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.No Authority Under GST Act To Reserve Judgement & Deliver It Later Without Issuing Notice To Assessee: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Sun Glass Works Private Limited v. The State of U.P. And 2 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2192 of 2025The 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.GST Act | S.130 Cannot Be Invoked For Excess Stock Found During Survey; Action Must Proceed U/S 73/74: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/s Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of UP and 3 othersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024The 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 surveyWhile 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...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 24 - November 30, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags