Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 05, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCWho Is Prescribed Authority For Appeal U/S 54 U.P. Water Supply & Sewerage Act? Allahabad High Court Asks StateCase Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri v. State Of U.P. And 3 OthersRecently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 to decide appeal against the assessment order passed by JaI Sansthan or any other agency under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act.Petitioner, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri, Kanpur is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of sophisticated Aircrafts and other Defence equipments and services and caters to the Defence services in India and is controlled by and works under the Ministry of Defence.Delhi HCAfter GST Rate Cut, Non-Reduction Of Price Can't Be Justified By Secretly Increasing Product Quantity At Same MRP : Delhi High CourtCase title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of IndiaCase no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when GST rates applicable on a given product are reduced by the GST Council, its benefit should trickle down to the end consumer by reduction in prices of such products.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that letting manufacturers increase the quantity of the product while charging the same MRP will defeat the purpose of rate-cuts.S.171 GST Act | Businesses Registration Can Be Cancelled Over Non-Reduction Of Prices After GST-Rate Cut: Delhi High CourtCase title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of IndiaCase no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018The Delhi High Court has held that an authority constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can order businesses to reduce their prices following reduction in GST rates applicable to their products.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that such authority can also impose penalty or cancel GST registration of those in default, in extreme cases.Penalty Can Be Imposed On Courier Agency For Not Reporting Suspicious Consignment To Customs: Delhi High CourtCase title: M/S Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)Case no.: W.P.(C) 7116/2019The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Customs can impose a penalty on a courier service which fails to report suspicious consignments being sent or received from abroad.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that courier agencies have a responsibility to ensure that whenever there are any suspicious courier packets being delivered or being transacted through them, due diligence ought to be exercised and if there is any suspicion, the same ought to be reported to the concerned authority.After Delhi High Court Nudge, Customs Dept Finalises Amendments To Baggage Rules, Seeks Time For Infrastructure UpgradeCase title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of IndiaCase no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025The Customs Department recently informed the Delhi High Court that the Draft Baggage Rules (amending Baggage Rules, 2016) have been finalized and are ready to be issued.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were further informed that the Department is awaiting upgradation of IT infrastructure, for effective implementation of the new rules.Delhi High Court Flags Glitch In GST Portal Generating Notice For Personal Hearing After Decision On AppealCase title: M/S A. L. Exports Through Its Proprietor Arsh v. Union of IndiaCase no.: W.P.(C) 15025/2025The Delhi High Court recently came across a peculiar case relating to Input Tax Credit refund claim, whereby a notice for personal hearing was issued to the trader, after the Appellate Authority rejected its plea.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain flagged the glitch in the Department's portal, which generated a personal hearing notice after the passage of the final order.Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT CreditCase title: AAI v. Union of IndiaCase no.: W.P.(C) 643/2024The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error or arbitrary exercise of power in the passing of the adjudication order which warrants interreference under writ jurisdiction.”FIRC Need Not Match Each Transaction, Periodic Certificate Sufficient If Total Forex Benefit Proven: Delhi High CourtCase title: Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi East & AnrCase no.: W.P.(C) 4987/2025The Delhi...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 05, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags