![Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [May 3rd to May 9th,2025]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Supreme-Court-High-Courts-Weekly-Round-up-taxscan.jpg)
This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week 3rd May 2025 – 9th May 2025)
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025 vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 162
The Supreme Court has admitted the petition challenging the validity of notifications issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) under Section 128A of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act. The matter will be taken up soon by the apex court.
Aggrieved by this decision of the high court, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Supreme Court, where it was filed on 1st February 2025. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan are expected to consider the matter on 14th May 2025.
KALYANI TRANSCO & M/S.BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 163
In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot review the actions taken by statutory authorities under other laws.
The NCLAT’s observations and findings regarding the ED’s provisional attachment order were deemed “coram non judice” by the court, meaning they were made without legal authority or jurisdiction.
TATA STEEL LTD. VS RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. CITATION: TAXSCAN (SC) 164
On May 7, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), has no jurisdiction to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory limit of 45 days (30 days plus a 15-day condonable period) prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.
The Court reiterated its stance from Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (2021), emphasizing that NCLAT has no authority to condone delays beyond 15 days after the initial 30-day period. The IBC’s appellate framework is deliberately stringent to ensure swift and certain resolution of insolvency cases.
GURUDAS MALLIK THAKUR vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 645
The Delhi High Court, in a matter where a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand was raised against Former Directors, ordered the GST department to set up the mechanism to file an appeal. It was ruled that the non-taxable persons can appeal and directed that the appeal shall not be dismissed on ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
It was directed to the Department to communicate to the Petitioners within two weeks the mechanism in which they can avail of their appellate remedies. Upon receiving the intimation, the Petitioners shall file the appeal within 30 days.
ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 646
The Delhi High Court has quashed two orders and five show cause notices (SCNs) citing gross and unexplained delays in the adjudication process, which spanned between six to eleven years.
In addition, it was noted that for the first four impugned SCNs, a personal hearing was conducted as early as 27 December 2016, and the petitioner submitted a clarificatory written response on 30 December 2016. Despite these steps, no final order was passed, and the adjudication process remained stalled for another 7.5 years without any justified reason, a delay the Court found wholly unjustifiable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Appeal, Order-in-Original, and the five SCNs.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 647
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that income from securities held by banks such securities are to be treated as stock-in-trade. So, the income derived from them should be assessed under the head “Profits and Gains of Business,” not as investment returns.
The court dismissed the appeal. The court directed that the parties would be bound by the outcome of any pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the earlier decisions, but reaffirmed its current position in favour of the assessee.
M/S MONTAGE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 648
In a recent ruling involving a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) fraud billing a bogus bill of Rs. 550 cores, the Delhi High Court declined to hear the petition. It ordered the petitioner to move the appellate forum for relief as the present case does not suit the writ jurisdiction.
The Court stated that the court’s observations would not prejudice the appellate proceedings, and disposed of the petition and pending applications accordingly.
VIJAY AND COMPANY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS SEEMA TAYAL vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 649
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld a Rs. 35 lakh GST demand raised against Vijay and Company, rejecting the petitioner’s plea to quash the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act. The court relied on the DRC-06 forms as conclusive evidence that the taxpayer had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the show cause notice but failed to do so.
The writ petition was dismissed, but the court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within thirty days. The court directed that the appeal, if filed along with the requisite pre-deposit, should be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on the ground of limitation.
SMART CHIP PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 650
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that the 10-year reassessment window allowed under the proviso to Section 153A(1) was inapplicable as the escaped income was not represented in the form of an asset, as required by law.
The writ petition was allowed, and the court clarified that the reassessment notice lacked legal validity due to non-fulfilment of statutory conditions for extended limitation.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs CHANDRAVADAN DESAI (HUF) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 651
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court quashed a penalty order of Rs. 7.29 crore, ruling that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were legally unsustainable, as they were conducted against an entity that no longer existed following a complete partition of the HUF.
The court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and held that the entire penalty proceeding was void in law. The accompanying stay application was also dismissed.
M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors vs The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 652
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court quashed a Rs. 88.64 lakh GST demand after finding that the inspection was carried out without the presence of independent witnesses and that the seizure order had been tampered with after the proceedings had begun.
The court ruled that the procedural lapses rendered the inspection illegal and the demand arising from it unsustainable. The court also issued a warning to the concerned officer, cautioning her against any future interference with official or court documents and stating that further violations would attract disciplinary action. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned.
M/S Shri Krishna Pharmaceutical And Surgicals Agencies vs Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise Lko. And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 653
The Allahabad High Court, while ruling that the circulars issued by the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) council are binding on the department, it quashed the GST demand orders issued under Section 74 of GST Act and IGST without considering the circulars.
To expedite proceedings, the Court instructed the petitioners to appear before the adjudicating authority on 11.03.2025 at 12:00 noon, along with their submissions. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. With these directions, the High Court disposed of both writ petitions.
S.Rekha vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 654
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has quashed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) orders which raised demand despite intimation of assessee’s death. The department chose to issue notices continuously and court permitted action against the heirs.
Consequently, the High Court declared the impugned order of 26.02.2025 set aside, but ordered liberty to the department to file new proceedings against the legal heirs of the deceased, who were ordered to submit their replies and take part in the process. With these instructions, the writ petition was granted without cost, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dispensed with.
M/s.Thirupathi Powerloom Weavers Coop and Society Limited vs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 655
The Madras High Court has quashed orders passed by the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Department that had reversed the input tax credit (ITC) claims of a registered taxpayer on grounds of late availment beyond the prescribed time under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Additionally, the court clarified that any tax amounts already recovered under the set-aside order must be refunded or credited back to the petitioner’s ledger for future tax adjustment. However, the court granted liberty to the department to proceed in accordance with law if there were independent grounds such as discrepancies, wrongful ITC availment, excess claims, or fake invoices unrelated to the limitation issue. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Dev Marketing vs The Assessment Unit [Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax] CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 656
The Bombay High Court has set aside an assessment order, after the Income Tax Department admitted it had committed a bonafide error by failing to grant the taxpayer a hearing through video conference, as requested. It remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
Additionally, the court noted a typographical correction in the affidavit regarding the omission of the word “not” in one paragraph, reading the correction into the record due to its obvious nature.
Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs The Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 657
The Bombay High Court has recently upheld a rebate claim, ruling that no Cenvat credit was availed on the inputs used in the exported goods, thus making the exporter eligible for the rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The Court noted that the logic in the impugned Order would lead to an unreasonable outcome. It held that merely availing Cenvat credit for unrelated domestic transactions cannot disqualify an exporter from claiming a rebate on exports where credit on relevant inputs was reversed. Such an interpretation was contrary to the export policy and precedent set by the Supreme Court in Spentex Industries Ltd.
VIBHOR MARKETING PVT LTD vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/ AVATO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 658
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted an opportunity to defend the case of a marketing company whose Show Cause notice ( SCN ) under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) issued during the same period of ill condition of directors who passed away later.
The court set aside the impugned order, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner a proper hearing.
DOMINO PRINTING SCIENCES PLC vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 659
The Patna High Court has held that settlement of disputes under DTVSV Scheme is Impossible in stage of issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act,1961.
The court directed the Designated Authority to process the petitioner’s declaration and determine the amount payable by the declarant in accordance with the provisions of the DTVSV Scheme by construing the date of declaration filed by the petitioner as 23.12.2024 and issue an appropriate certificate in the prescribed form within a period of fifteen days from the date.
Bishal Roadways vs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 660
The Patna High Court has held in a recent judgement that the Customs Act, 1962 provides ‘unfettered power’ to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of its provisions.
When the matter was brought forward, the Court ordered the respondent Custom authorities to take it into consideration in line with the law and issue the necessary orders as soon as possible. Within six months of today, it is anticipated that the investigation and any adjudication procedures that result from it will be finished.
M/S.ANNAI VELANGANNI INDUSTRIES VS THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 661
The Madras High Court condoned a delay of 192 days in filing an appeal under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act considering the combined grounds of the part-time accountant’s failure to inform the proceedings and the ill health of the proprietor.
After hearing both parties and perusing the records, the bench of Vivek Kumar Singh held that the petitioner had demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay. The Court observed that the combination of the accountant’s failure to communicate important updates and the proprietor’s health constituted valid grounds for condonation.
TVL T.SELVAM CIVIL CONTRACTOR VS THE STATE TAX OFFICER-4 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 662
Regarding the GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand raised due to mismatches in ITR Form 26AS, discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in GST Returns 2A (GSTR-2A), and ITC reversals stemming from credit notes received, the Madras High Court has directed the petitioner to approach the designated appellate forum, citing that an effective statutory remedy is available there.
The bench of Vivek Kumar Singh of the Madras High Court declined to interfere with the assessment order at the writ stage. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds presented in the writ petition before the appellate forum.
GE RENEWABLES GRID LLC vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 663
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court quashed the reopening of income tax assessments initiated against GE Renewables Grid LLC (formerly known as Alstom Grid Inc/LLC), holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide any tangible evidence of the company having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The court held that the reassessment proceedings lacked the foundational requirement of demonstrable material and could not be sustained in law. The court explained that reassessment under Section 147 demands a reasonable belief based on specific information, which was entirely missing in this case.
CAROL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 Taxscan (HC) 664
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for completing assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act begins from the date when documents are transferred from the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee.
The court explained that, as per the proviso to Section 153C, the relevant date for computing limitation is the date when the AO of the “other person” receives the documents from the AO of the searched person.
SURYA MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS:Citation: 2025 Taxscan (HC) 665
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot raise claims that were not part of an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), invoking the Clean Slate Doctrine.
The bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tejas Karia explained that all prior claims not incorporated in the plan are deemed extinguished once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC. The court observed that permitting such reassessments would undermine the finality and sanctity of the insolvency resolution process and contradict the Clean Slate Doctrine enshrined in the IBC.
M/s Graphic Trades Private Limited vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 666
The Patna High Court upheld the order passed under rule 86-A (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules (CGST) as there was valid reason for blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC).
A division bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed that no illegality or infirmity may be found with the impugned order (Annexure ‘P/2’) which is in the nature of an interim measure taken by respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 4 has acted on the basis of Annexure “P/2”, however, the order, if any of respondent no. 4 is not under challenge specifically. The petitioner has a remedy available against the blocking of ITC. If so advised, the petitioner may avail its remedy in terms of paragraph 3.4 of the guidelines. If any such request is made by the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner/its authorized representative.
GOODRICH CARBOHYDRATES LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 667
IIn a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) has no jurisdiction to ignore the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] even by relying on the subsequent supreme court decision.
The court clarified that its ruling did not address the merit of the addition or disallowance in relation to the delayed deposit of the EPF/PF contributions. The petition was disposed of accordingly, reaffirming the limits of the AO’s authority in such cases.
M/s.Devi Traders vs The State Tax Officer (Inspection) 5 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 668
The High Court of Madras,upheld the denial of input tax credit (ITC) for the petitioner due to the lack of proof of actual supply and absence of e-way bills.
The Court held that the Department followed proper procedure and that the burden was on the petitioners to prove receipt of goods. As they failed to do so, the ITC was rightly denied. It also ruled that cross-examination of Charles and Shanthi was not necessary, as their statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioners.
The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s New Punjab Motor Transport CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 669
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, was invalid since it was based only on a precedent that the Supreme Court had overturned.
It was viewed that applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors, will have retrospective application. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi and remitted the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi for fresh adjudication of the issue, taking into consideration the observation made by the High Court.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS vs CHYAWAN PRAKASH MEENA B CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 670
The Gauhati High Court allowed a request that the central government reimburse the income tax withheld from the wages of a BSF Assistant Commandant who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The bench held that Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.
The court dismissed the department’s appeal and held that Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.
M/S JAI OPTICAL vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 671
The Delhi High Court held that the act of the proper officer in confirming demand of Rs. 1.5 crores GST on the ground of absence of the assessee in the hearing is not valid, and the bench directed the department to empathetically consider assessee’s request for adjournment of a personal hearing on medical grounds.
Considering the circumstances , the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that “ The medical ground which was stated on 23nd December, 2024 ought to have been considered empathetically as the same was accompanied with all the documents from Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
DALJEET SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 672
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed Customs authorities to release a gold kada (bracelet) belonging to a Sikh man, ruling that it qualifies as his “personal effect”
The bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta concluded that detaining petitioner’s gold kada was unlawful. It ordered Customs to release the kada within four weeks, subject to payment of applicable warehouse charges. With this, the petition and all pending applications were disposed of.
SHRI SAI RAM ENTERPRIESES vs PR. ADG, DGGI, GURUGRAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 673
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has ruled that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year under rule 86A Central Goods ande Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017.
The court, however, proceeded to grant liberty to the Revenue to take independent action against the Petitioner, if the allegation of running a bogus firm stood substantiated.
LALIT GULATI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 674
The Patna High Court has held that settlement of dispute under DTVSV Scheme is Impossible in the stage of issuance of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act,1961.
The court noted that the issue was already settled in favour of the petitioner in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd.Accordingly, the bench quashed the notice dated 23.07.2022 and set aside all related proceedings. The petition was allowed.
RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 675
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi set aside the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14, citing the failure to meet legal conditions and the expiration of the time limitation.
The bench set aside the reassessment proceedings, ruling that no notice under Section 148 could be issued for AY 2013-14.Therefore, the petition was allowed.
Amit Kashyap vs Principal Secretary CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 676
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), while upholding the validity of two state notifications that relaxed the eligibility criteria for appointment as Technical Member (State) of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The Court noted that the proviso empowers the State Government, “on the recommendations of the Council,” to relax the twenty-five-year Group A service requirement, but solely “in respect of officers of such State where no person has completed twenty-five years of service in Group A”
CTS Industries Limited vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 677
In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld a GST assessment order issued by the State Tax Authority, ruling that no procedural or jurisdictional error occurred as no proceedings had been initiated by the Central agency at the time the State order was passed.
The court ruled that the assessment order passed by the State authority was valid, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal and directed that any delay in doing so be considered leniently by the appellate authority, taking into account the petitioner’s bona fide belief in pursuing a writ remedy.
Sandeep Kaur Gill vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 678
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the penalty under section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be imposed for cash repayment of a loan on the lender’s instruction to curb interest escalation.
The court held that since the appellant has shown the reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, the appellant is not liable to pay penalty under Section 271E of the Income Act for non-compliance with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs BHARTI AIRTEL LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 679
In the case of Bharati Airtel, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department and held that charges paid for bandwidth to overseas telecom operators do not amount to royalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
While dismissing the revenue’s appeal, the High Court observed that undisputedly, the questions raised are covered by the earlier decisions of the court in New Skies Satellite BV [68 taxmann.com8] [2016] and CIT v. Telstra Singapore Pte. Ltd. : [2024]. Thus, the charges paid for bandwidth to overseas telecom service providers cannot be construed as royalties in the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
ANKIT KHANDELWAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 680
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed an income tax reassessment, holding that reassessment proceedings could not be sustained beyond the three-year limitation period where the amount allegedly escaping assessment did not exceed Rs. 50 lakh.
Rejecting the Revenue’s argument that the value of alleged fictitious gains should govern limitation, the court clarified that the AO must assess the actual escaped income, not just rely on the information received.
Omnarayansri Agrifarmer Pvt. Ltd vs Punjab National Bank CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 681
Reinforcing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that a civil suit seeking to declare proceedings under the SARFAESI Act as “null and void” is expressly barred by Section 34 of the Act once a borrower’s account has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
It was held that, “the order passed by the Commercial Court rejecting the injunction application as well as plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. does not suffer from any error of fact and/or law.”
M/S D And D Construction And Developers Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 682
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that the movement of an old machine from the head office of a company to its branch for internal use does not constitute tax evasion under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework. It was noted that the delivery challan clearly indicated that the goods were being transferred for the company’s own use, and not for sale or supply to any third party.
The Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned penalty order and allowed the writ petition filed by M/s D and D Construction and Developers Company.
Kishore Kumar Singh vs The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 683
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court quashed preliminary orders and held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, even under the unamended provisions, must be supported by proper reasoning, regardless of whether the law mandates it.
The court granted liberty to the Income Tax Department to issue fresh notices within eight weeks, provided they are supported by detailed reasoning. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NTPC VIDYUT VYAPAR NIGAM LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 684
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that proceeds from the sale of fly ash by NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (NVVNL), a wholly owned subsidiary of NTPC, were not taxable as income under the Income Tax Act. The court held that the funds were subject to statutory restrictions imposed by environmental regulations so they could not be treated as profit earned by the assessee.
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the court held that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.
MAGICON IMPEX PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 685
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to entertain the petition as the impugned GST order rejecting the refund claim was passed after considering the reply and the written submissions of the Petitioner. A perusal of the adjudication order would show that there is a detailed adjudication of various factual issues.
The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that “If the appeal is filed within the next 30 days, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.”
Shree Shakambhari Udyog Partnership Firm vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 686
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court upheld the validity of income tax reassessment notices, ruling that the initial procedural lapse concerning the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) was subsequently rectified within the permitted timeframe.
The bench ruled that no jurisdictional error was apparent in the assessment or penalty orders, and that the petitioner could pursue appeals before the competent authority.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 687
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the limited scope of Section 260A(6) and rejected cross-objections in the Income Tax Appeal.
The bench held that the provisions of Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not give an independent right to the respondent to raise a challenge divorced or isolated from the question on which the appeal comes to be admitted.
SS ENTERPRISES vs OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 688
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that under the Section 75(5) of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017 merely sets a ceiling of three adjournments in assessment proceedings, but does not imply that three personal hearings must be mandatorily granted. The court was entertaining a case related to fraudulent Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).
The Court further clarified that if the appeal is filed within 30 days of receiving the RUDs, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and should be adjudicated on merits.
M/s. Star Time Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 689
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court ruled that infrastructure fee deductions under the Income Tax Act must be calculated based on actual advertising receipts and not on gross advertising bills.
Finding no perversity in the tax authorities’ decisions, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal.
M/s Surya CEF JV vs The Chief Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 690
In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court set aside a service tax demand order for failing to comply with the requirement of granting three personal hearings under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner, CGST and CX (Audit), Patna. The court directed that a fresh date of hearing be fixed with at least four weeks’ notice, and that the petitioner be allowed to submit relevant documents and make written submissions.
Siddartha Travels vs Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 691
In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld a Rs. 25 lakh service tax demand against Siddartha Travels, rejecting the travel agency’s claim that its business records were destroyed in a fire. The court found that the demand was justified due to the agency’s non-filing of statutory returns and non-cooperation during the investigation process.
The court declined to interfere with the tax demand and adjudication order, holding that no jurisdictional error had occurred and clarified that it had not ruled on the merits of the tax computation itself, as those issues involve factual determinations more appropriately handled in an appeal.
Trustcap Private vs Income Tax Officer Ward CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 692
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed an income tax matter using the principle of forum conveniens, holding that the Bombay High Court was not the appropriate court exercising jurisdiction over show-cause notice and reassessment notices that had been issued in Kolkata.
Dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the challenge to the reassessment proceedings, and the petitioner was free to pursue appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta.
Skystar Clearing & Forwarding Pvt Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 693
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court condoned a delay of nearly five years in filing defective Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for two assessment years, on the condition that the petitioner would not claim interest on any resulting refund. The Court found that the delay was due to financial hardship and internal miscommunication, rather than any deliberate intent to evade the law. The court also clarified that if any refund is due, it shall be granted without interest.
Gaurav Goenka vs The State of Maharashtra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 694
The division bench of Bombay High Court comprising Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and Hemambika R. Priya ( Technical Member ) has allowed the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) to record statements via video conferencing before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in the case were the renewal of passport was withheld.
In order to record his statement for the investigation, the court ordered the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer via audio-video technology.
Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 695
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench comprising Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao held that 5 % Value Added Tax (VAT) is leviable on the sale of liquid carbon dioxide.
While allowing the appeal, the bench disagreed with the contention of the department that a declaration has to be obtained from the purchaser of carbon dioxide to obtain concessional rate of tax available to such products and set aside the order of revision.
LALIT GULATI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 696
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that income tax reassessments cannot be initiated after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, regardless of whether the reassessment is under the old regime or the new framework introduced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).
The court observed that this time limit must be respected to maintain legal certainty and avoid unnecessary litigation.
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ACC (IMPORT) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 697
The Delhi High Court,granted relief to IndiGo by quashing the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) demand on reimported aircraft parts that were previously taxed as a service import.
The court found that the 2021 amendment and CBIC clarification went beyond mere clarification and instead expanded the tax base. It held that imposing an additional duty after treating the transaction as a supply of service was unconstitutional and not permissible.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs KUNAL TRAVEL CARGO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 698
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain the appeal filed by the customs department over Rs. 57K drawback dispute by citing negligible quantum.
The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original was Rs. 50,000, but the total sum claimed to have been improperly obtained by the customs agency through drawback is only Rs. 57,201.
RAKESH KUMAR GULATI vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 699
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a Chartered Accountant (CA) who was accused of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by vitiating the legal process of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The bail was conducted considering no possibility of trial.
The court granted CA bail after he satisfied the Trial Court/Link Court with a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of the same amount, subject to a number of additional requirements.
SANDEEP GARG vs SALES TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 700
The Delhi High Court ruled that the department cannot be faulted for the act of the petitioner neglecting to check the portal and not replying to the show-cause notice.
While disposing the appeal, the court held that the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 along with the pre-deposit on the tax amount in terms of the said provision.
EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 701
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court acknowledged a degree of procedural laxity on Exide Industries’ part in responding to hearing notices and imposed Rs. 1 Lakh cost while remanding the matter for fresh hearing.
The court also clarified that the period of limitation under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, would not apply in this case, owing to the company’s earlier delays. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with directions for a new hearing.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (DGGI) vs YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 702
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail and refused to allow the rearrest of the accused, alleged to have made a fake /bogus availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Court believed that significant time had elapsed since the issuance of the impugned order. Therefore, in light of the developments noted above, it is not warranted to curtail the Respondent’s liberty by ordering his re-arrest.
SAROJ MEHNDI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 703
In a recent ruling the High Court of Delhi,set aside the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 23.06.2021 was beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The issue was already settled in favour of the petitioner in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO. The court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings.
R.C. JEWELLERS PVT.LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 704
The Delhi High Court, ruled that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961,could not be initiated in the absence of incriminating material. The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia set aside the impugned notices, order, and all related proceedings, and disposed of the pending applications, allowing the petition.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs M/S WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 705
The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling,upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, stating that Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion(AMP) expenses are not a separate international transaction.
The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia had also taken the same view in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010–11, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by relying on Maruti Suzuki.
FIITJEE FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAININGS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 706
The Delhi High Court,directed the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] to condone the 30-day delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year(AY) 2022-23, following the assessee’s explanation that the delay was due to medical issues in the accountant’s family.
The Court also referred to Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which allows for the condonation of delays in cases of genuine hardship. It noted that the Bombay High Court had emphasized a liberal interpretation of “genuine hardship” in similar cases. The bench concluded that the delay was not due to negligence.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
