Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 22 - September 28, 2025

SUPREME COURTNo Export Duty On Transfer From Domestic Tariff Area To SEZ : Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Appeal Against Adani PowerCause Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & OTHER VERSUS M/S ADANI POWER LTD.Observing that the movement of goods from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a domestic supply and not an export outside India, the Supreme Court provided relief to Adani Power Ltd. and other entities from paying export duty under the Customs Act, 1962, for the movement of goods from DTA to SEZ.A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which ruled that export duty cannot be levied for movement from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to an SEZ. The High Court had held that it was a domestic supply and not an export outside India, therefore exempted from the payment of the export duty.Supreme Court Dismisses Airports Authority's Appeal Against Service Tax Levy For Cargo HandlingCase : Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service TaxThe Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) challenging the levy of service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo, ruling that such services fall within the ambit of “taxable services” under the Finance Act, 1994.A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that while “handling of export cargo” is excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the Act, cargo handling service nonetheless qualifies as a “taxable service” in terms of sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2004.HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCAllahabad High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging S.127 CGST Act Over 'Unbridled' Power Given To Authorities To Impose Penalty On AssesseeCase Title: Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and AnotherRecently, the Allahabad High Court has issued notices to office of the Solicitor General of India and Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 127 of the Central and State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Petitioner was issued an order under Section 127, which he allegedly came to know of in 2025. It has been pleaded that the orders were neither sent to the petitioner nor uploaded on the portal. Petitioner, in the writ petition, submitted that proceedings under Section 74 were initiated regarding transactions made by the petitioner with another assesee, which were later dropped.Provisional Attachment Of Bank Accounts Cannot Be Done Merely Upon Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S 74 GST Act: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 4 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025The Allahabad High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot be done merely upon issue of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and its earlier judgment in R.D. Enterprises v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “If the reason that provisional attachment is being done as proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act is allowed to stand, then in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid. The law as laid down in the abovementioned judgements makes it patently clear that a proper opinion has to be formed based on adequate reasons for such a draconian action to be taken.”Notice U/S 148 Income Tax Act Must Be Delivered To Addressee Personally By Post To Complete Service U/S 27: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income TaxCase no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.Bombay HCPending Proceedings Under Omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) Lapse In Absence Of Savings Clause: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Hikal Limited v. Union of IndiaCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 22 - September 28, 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags