Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 08 - September 14, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HC[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High CourtCase title: - M/S Rajdhani Udyog v. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3684 of 2025While calling for personal affidavit from Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow explaining the conduct of the tax officers in the State in not following the orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Officers must know the law.Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that, “While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.”Andhra Pradesh HC[CGST Act] Absence Of Document Identification Number Doesn't Render Assessment Orders Void: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and OthersCase Number: WRIT PETITION Nos:16500, 16548 & 18862 of 2025The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of document identification number doesn't render assessment orders void.The bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam were addressing the issue where the assessee/petitioner has challenged the assessment orders passed against him. The main ground for challenge is the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.Bombay HCRight To Travel Abroad Can't Be Curtailed Solely On Grounds Of Pending Tax Prosecution: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff and anr.Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.4670 of 2025The Bombay High Court has stated that facing tax prosecution does not automatically bar an accused from foreign travel.Justice S.M. Modak stated that, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending."Tax Liability Under JDA Arises Only Upon Conveyance Of Property, Not On Execution Of Agreement: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s Provident Housing Ltd. v. Union of IndiaCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2022The Bombay High Court held that tax liability under JDA (joint development agreement) arises only upon conveyance of property, not on execution of agreement.The bench consists of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that no liability actually fell upon the assessee at the time when JDA was entered into, as the liability arises only upon the conveyance of the property. The assessee developer becoming the owner of the property for which the JDA was executed. Accordingly, the tax liability does not fall upon the assessee.Delhi HCDelhi High Court Orders Customs To Release Padma Bhushan Awardee's Imported Artwork Amidst Dispute Over ValuationCase title: Uday Jain & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner Customs Air Cargo And Import & AnrCase no.: W.P.(C) 13092/2025The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the artwork of Padma Bhushan awardee Late BC Sanyal, seized amid a dispute surrounding its valuation.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed there is no conclusive proof that the artwork was made in Pakistan, as claimed by the Department. “The bill of entry itself reveals that the import is being effected from Dubai,” it observed.Customs Broker's Failure To Oversee Warehousing Of Re-Export Goods Leading To Sale In Local Market Is 'A Clear Infraction': Delhi HCCase title: Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General) v. M/S Jaiswal Import Cargo Services LtdCase no.: CUSAA 111/2025The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker must diligently perform its responsibilities under the 2018 Licensing Regulations however, any failure thereof must be met with a proportionate punishment.While dealing with a case where the broker's license was suspended due to alleged failure to oversee warehousing of goods meant for re-export, leading to their sale in the domestic market, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “There is no doubt that Customs Brokers do have significant responsibility under the CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations) 2018 which ought to be performed with diligence and commitment. The fact that the Respondent did not oversee the clearance and the warehousing of the goods leading to diversion of the goods in the domestic market is a clear infraction.”CESTAT Can't Admit Appeal Without Pre-Deposit But High Court Can Waive It In 'Rare' Circumstances: Delhi High CourtCase title: M/S Tecmax Electronics v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)Case no.: CUSAA 121/2025The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of pre-deposit for preferring an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is mandatory and the forum has no power to admit any appeal without the same.However, a...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 08 - September 14, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags