Tax Weekly Round-Up: October 20 - October 26, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
27 Oct 2025 2:25 PM IST
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GSTCase no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 52380/2025Case Title – Union Of India & Anr. v. M/S Life Sciences Chemicals & Anr.The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a “transfer of land” or amounts to a “supply of service” under the...
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GST
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 52380/2025
Case Title – Union Of India & Anr. v. M/S Life Sciences Chemicals & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a “transfer of land” or amounts to a “supply of service” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with Centre's plea challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held that assignment of leasehold rights in land and building does not amount to a taxable supply under the GST Act.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Stays Rs.110 Crore GST Demand On Dabur's Hajmola Candy
Case Title: M/S Dabur India Ltd v Union of India and Ors
Case Number: WRIT TAX No. - 4709 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court on October 10 stayed a ₹110 crore GST show cause notice issued to Dabur India Ltd. over the classification of its Hajmola Candy Tablets.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the interim order in a petition filed by Dabur challenging the DGGI notice issued earlier this year.
Bombay HC
Case Title: West India Continental Oils Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3000 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay Rs. 71.31. Lakh interest on refund of illegal IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) collected under RCM (Reverse Charge Mechanism) on ocean freight.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that admittedly, the Petitioner had paid the amount of IGST which the respondents utilized up to the date of grant of refund. Having utilized such amounts of the Petitioner there is no justification, legal or otherwise to deny interest to the Petitioner. To deprive the Petitioner of interest, in the given facts, would run contrary to the well-recognised legal principle of restitution which also finds statutory force under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Title: Shri. Indu Shekhar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.5253 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has granted a stay on the Notification issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade) seeking to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2025, the DGFT, having realised the mistake, issued a fresh Notification rectifying the same.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar were addressing a petition seeking a declaration that Notification No.02/2025-26 dated 2nd April 2025, issued by DGFT to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”, is ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Harish Kumar Chhabada v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 138 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that failure to raise a timely objection to jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act bars the assessee from challenging the assessment.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal stated that the assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi HC
Case title: All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9971/2025
The Delhi High Court recently questioned the Central government for effectively withdrawing GST concessions granted to differently-abled persons on purchase of cars. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao asked the standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter and respond by December 17.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries reducing GST rate on vehicles from 28% to 18%, without granting any special concessions for the differently-abled.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar
Case no.: ITA 525/2025 + ITA 526/2025 + ITA 527/2025 + ITA 528/2025 + ITA 531/2025
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department against the firm.
Unsigned GST Demand Order Valid If Accompanied By DRC-07 Bearing Officer's Details: Delhi High Court
Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15611/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with a petition moved by Future Consumer Limited, challenging the demand order on the ground that it does not bear the signature of the official who has passed the order.
S.107 GST Act | Taxpayer Can't Ignore Order Merely Because Copy Was Illegible: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15509/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus refused to condone the taxpayer's delay in filing appeal against a GST demand order merely on the ground that the order supplied to it was illegible. It observed, “The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order-in-Original dated 04th February, 2025 is not a legible order. If so, the Petitioner had a duty to approach the Department and obtain a legible order, if the Petitioner cannot completely ignore the fact that it had received a copy and had not filed an appeal challenging the same.”
Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash
Case title: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11521/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain gave “clear directions to all the Customs Authorities…to ensure that the Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 along with Notification No.23 of 2025-26 shall be implemented strictly in letter and spirit. If any Commissionerate of Customs, are found permitting imports in violation thereof, would be liable for stringent action in accordance with law.”
Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “A perusal of Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly shows that copies of the seized data cannot be denied to the Petitioner. However, such copies can be made in the presence of an Authorised Officer, unless it is recorded in writing, that providing copies would be prejudicial to the investigation.”
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Faiz Ahmed v. The State of AP
Case Number: AB/103/2025
The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused of passing fake ITC worth Rs. 199.31 crores, which was passed to 58 firms across 11 States using fabricated invoices totalling Rs. 658.88 Crores.
Justice Kardak Ete was dealing with the case where the accused persons, led by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, had created a fictitious firm, M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, using forged documents, including a fake seal of JMFC Changlang, Aadhaar, PAN Card, and electricity bills.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: Vineet Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17720 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court held that statutory interest mandatorily payable under Section 56 GST Act on refunds delayed beyond 60 days.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi stated that the provision of section 56 of the GST Act is a mandatory provision and the interest which is required to be paid under section 56 is compensatory in nature for delayed payment of refund which otherwise is not in dispute.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2010
The Gujarat High Court, while quashing the penalty of Rs. 25.53 Cr. on Hindustan Coca-Cola, stated that the amount of tax could not have been bifurcated by the revenue simply because the sales had been inclusive of tax.
The bench found that there is no evidence on record to show that the assessee had collected any amount by way of tax from its distributors, retailers or customers, as the sales invoice shows the 'Nil' tax in the sales tax column along with the fact that there was an endorsement on the sales invoice that the sales taxes are exempted from payment of tax.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1417 of 2008
The Gujarat High Court stated that the customs commissioner cannot reassess duty on warehoused imports cleared from refineries beyond his jurisdiction.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi agreed with the Tribunal that a proper officer having the administrative jurisdiction over the respective refineries where the goods were removed under section 67 of the Customs Act, 1962, only could have assumed the jurisdiction for reassessment and not the Commissioner, Jamnagar, who can only be considered as proper officer till the goods were permitted to be warehoused on provisional assessment.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 42 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.
Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19544 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.
TRIBUNALS
Revenue Sharing Arrangements Not Taxable As Service U/S 65(90a) Of Finance Act: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52667 OF 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue-sharing arrangements are not taxable as a service under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property.