Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [April 19th to April 25th,2025]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week 19th April 2025 to 25th April 2025)

Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before FIR in Corruption Cases Against Public Servants: Supreme Court

STATE OF KARNATAKA vs T.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 157

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a preliminary enquiry is not a mandatory precondition for registering an FIR against a public servant accused of corruption, provided the source information is credible and sufficiently detailed.

The court held that mandating a preliminary enquiry in all corruption cases would undermine anti-corruption efforts and delay the investigative process. The court explained that the law does not prescribe a rigid procedural sequence when credible evidence of wrongdoing is available. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and restored the FIR registered against the respondent.

Orissa HC Clarifies SC’s Interim Relief on Entry Tax Interest Applies Only to SLP Petitioners

M/s. Indera Motors, Rourkela vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 550

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s interim relief on a dispute regarding entry tax interest applies only to those who filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging the imposition of interest.

Are You GST Compliant? Get the Clarity You Need on RCM - Click here

The court observed that the petitioner had accepted the High Court’s order and compiled by depositing the 2/3 tax with interest. As there was no express stay from the Supreme Court on this order, the court found no justification to extend the interim relief. However, the court gave the petitioner two months to deposit the outstanding demand. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Bank account attached during pendency of appeal: Madras HC directs disposal within two months

CRC Limited Employees Gratuity Fund vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 551

The High Court of Madras directed the appellate authority to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal within two months, after noting that the petitioner’s bank account had been attached despite the pendency of both an appeal and a stay petition.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh having considered the above submissions, directed the third respondent to review the petitioner’s appeal dated 08.04.2024 on its merits and issue appropriate orders in accordance with the law, after providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity, within two months from receiving a copy of the order. The court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the third respondent was free to assess it independently. In short,the petition was disposed of.

Inordinate 11-Year Delay in Adjudication Violates S. 11A(11) of Central Excise Act: Delhi HC Orders Release of Goods

PARAS PRODUCTS vs COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 552

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed orders of confiscation and penalty issued under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to an inordinate delay of over 11 years in completing adjudication proceedings. The court directed the Central GST authorities to release the seized goods and return the Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioners.

Finding the prolonged inaction unjustifiable, the court quashed the impugned orders dated 30.12.2022 and 02.03.2023. The court directed the Central GST authorities to release the Bank Guarantees furnished at the time of seizure within six weeks. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

Personal Gold Jewellery Worn at Family Event Abroad Seized at Airport: Delhi HC Orders Immediate Release

SWATI VIJAY SALUNKE & ANR. vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 553

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to release personal gold jewellery seized from a returning Indian couple, confirming that the items constituted personal belongings and were not liable for continued detention.

The court directed the Customs Department to release the seized jewellery within four weeks to the petitioners or their authorised representative, subject to verification. It further clarified that no storage charges shall be levied in this case. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Taxpayer Previously Responded to GST SCN Sent via Portal, Cannot Plead Unawareness for Disputed AY: Delhi HC

A B C ENTERPRISES vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 102 CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 554

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that a taxpayer who previously responded to GST notices served via the official portal and electronic communication cannot later claim unawareness of similar notices issued for a subsequent assessment year.

The court clarified that if the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time, any delay would have to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The court also recorded that the petitioner no longer pressed its challenge to certain central and state GST notifications. The writ petition was disposed of.

Calcutta HC grants Businessman Bail in Rs. 37.29 Cr GST Input Tax Credit Case based on Toll Data

Santosh Kumar Sah vs Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 555

In a significant development that underscores judicial vigilance over the use of arrest powers under tax laws, the Calcutta High Court granted bail on April 17, 2025, to Santosh Kumar Sah, a businessman arrested under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 37.29 crore.

Despite the pending bail application before the Sessions Court, Justice Chowdhury invoked inherent powers to grant bail, recognizing that the accused had no knowledge of parallel proceedings and that prolonged custody was unwarranted.

Additional Penalty u/s 125 Not applicable When Late Fees Levied for Non-Filing or Delayed Filing of GST Returns: Madras HC

Tvl.Jainsons Castors & Industrial Products vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 558

The Madras High Court has  held that an additional penalty under section 125 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is  not applicable when late fees are levied for non-filing or delayed filing of GST returns.

The bench noted that section 125 is a residuary penalty clause that only applies in the absence of any other specified penalty. The general penalty under Section 125 was not applicable because a specific penalty (late fee) under Section 47 had already been applied. The court invalidated the penalty imposed under Section 125 but upheld the imposition of a late charge under Section 47. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Cenvat Credit on Transitional period  Under GST Not Allowable on Capital Goods Received After July 1, 2017: Patna HC

M/s JMD Alloys Ltd vs Union of India through Chief Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 557

While upholding the recovery of ineligible CENVAT credit, the Patna High Court has held that transitional credit under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017.

The Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities, and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.

Customs Dept Fails to issue SCN in Time: Delhi HC Directs Release of Gold Seized from Minor at IGI Airport

MOHAMMAD ARHAM vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 556

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Commissioner of Customs to release gold bangles seized from a minor passenger at IGI Airport, New Delhi, as the department failed to issue a show cause notice (SCN) within the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962.

The court directed that the appraisal was to be conducted in his presence or that of an authorized representative since the petitioner had attained majority. The court also waived storage and warehouse charges. The writ petition was disposed of.

Cenvat Credits Applicability of Jindal Stainless Ltd on Input used for Electricity generated and sold to HSEB: Punjab and Haryana HC Remands matter to CESTAT

Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 561

In a recent case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has remanded the issue on applicability of cenvat credit  in case of Jindal steel Ltd on the input used fro electricity generated and sold to HSEB. The issue was remanded back to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT)New Delhi.

A division bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Sudeepti Sharma found that the electricity generated in captive plant was not used in or relation to manufacture of final products within the factory of production but was sold to HSEB whereas Tribunal did not decide this dispute and held that there is no dispute with regard to the appellant receiving same quantity of electricity which was cleared to the Electricity Board, therefore, the issue in dispute was never decided by the Tribunal.  Since the parties agreed in remanding the matter, the court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide.

Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion  expenditure incurred not constitute an “international transaction” u/s 92F of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

PCIT vs BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT.LTD CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 560

The Delhi High Court in a recent case held that advertising, marketing, and Promotion expenditure incurred not constitute an “international transaction” under section 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench held  that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the orders of assessment for reasons assigned therein and consequently merits no interference.

Challenge against Penalty Imposed under Customs Act: Telangana HC directs to appeal before CESTAT

M/s Zeta International vs Additional commissioner of_ custom CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 559

The Telangana High Court directed to appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)on the challenge against penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1961 .

It was further held that “  If the petitioner undertakes the aforesaid exercise of filing the appeal within the aforesaid time and deposits the amount as stated above, the learned appellate authority shall make endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously.”

Bombay HC sets aside Income Tax Reassessment Order in Citing Violation of mandatory unamended provisions under Section 144B

Madhuri Sameer Gokhale vs The Addl. Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 562

In a ruling, the Bombay High Court sets aside Income Tax Reassessment Order  in violation of mandatory unamended provisions under Section 144B, read with the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rendering such assessment, ex facie without jurisdiction and a nullity in law.

Once a Chartered Accountant is engaged and there is a genuine dependence on his services, such as in the present case, whose personal difficulties had caused a delay in filing of the petitioners returns, was certainly a cause beyond the control of the petitioners/assessees. In these circumstances, the assessee, being at no fault, should have been the primary consideration of the PCIT. It also cannot be overlooked that any professional, for reasons which are not within the confines of human control, by sheer necessity of the situation can be kept away from the professional work and despite his best efforts, it may not be possible for him to attend the same A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni & Justice Advait M. has ruled that the petitioner has become entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Bombay HC Stays ₹133 Crore GST Penalty on Shemaroo Entertainment Executive

Mr.Amit Manilal Haria & Ors vs The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE & Ors CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 563

In a recent development, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to senior executives of Shemaroo Entertainment Limited in connection with a Rs. 133 crore GST penalty imposed by the tax authorities.

The court observed that a strong prima facie case had been made out and that the balance of convenience favored granting interim protection. The court directed the GST department not to take any coercive action based on the impugned order pending a further hearing. The court granted the Revenue time to file a reply and listed the matter for further consideration on June 10, 2025.

Revised Property Tax for Past 3 Years to be paid by Building Owners Liable after Adjusting Already Paid Amount: Kerala HC

THE GATEWAY HOTELS vs KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 566

The Kerala High Court ruled that after deducting  the amount of property tax already paid, building owners may be held accountable for paying the annual property tax requested in the corresponding demand notifications at the updated rates for a period three years prior to the date of demand.

The bench rejected the petition and ordered that, if not paid voluntarily, the property tax demands made in accordance with the demand notifications in each of these cases from 2016 to 2017 up to three years before the demand notice dates would not be enforced.

Refund of GST Pre-Deposit made u/s 107(6)(b) cannot be Denied on Grounds of Limitation: Jharkhand HC

M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 568

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that it is constitutionally untenable to deny a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit made under Section 107(6)(b) of the  Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017, on the grounds that it was submitted beyond the two-year statute of limitations under Section 54(1).

The court held that the action of the respondents in rejecting the refund application considering it as time barred has no legs to stand in law and accordingly, the rejection order by way of Deficiency Memo dated 06.11.2024, is hereby, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, and directed the Department to process the refund with applicable statutory interest within six weeks.

GST Rate Mentioned Prevalent on Day of Receipt of Tender is Leviable by contractors. J&K HC

Vishal Verma S/o Sh. Sham Sunder Verma R/o vs Union of India through it Secretary CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 565

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the contractors were required to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the rate in effect on the final day of the tender submission process rather than when the work was assigned.

In response to this submission, the court said that changes in the rates of GST in above SRO-GST were only with respect to specific composite supply of works contract which were the works contracts for construction or installation of specified items like a historical monument, canal, pipeline conduit etc. The court added that at the time of submission of bids prevalent rate of GST was 18% change in SRO-GST-2 which is pleaded by review petition was only with respect to above specific items.

Jharkhand HC refuses to Condone 17 Months in Filing Appeal u/s 107 of CGST Act

M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee vs The Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 567

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that an appeal filed after the deadline specified under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and that the statute’s clear time limits for delays cannot be exceeded.

The bench dismissed the writ petition against the cancellation of its GST registration and the rejection of its appeal by the Appellate Authority as there was no ground to interfere with either the cancellation order or the rejection of the appeal.

Karnataka HC Holds ₹25 Crore Stamp Duty Cap Excludes 10% Cess as S.3B of Karnataka Stamp Act Functions Independently

PRESTIGE EXORA BUSINESS PARKS LIMITED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 569

The Karnataka High Court,upheld the validity of an additional ₹2.5 crore stamp duty charged as 10% cess under Section 3B of the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 ruling that the ₹25 crore cap under Article 20(4)(ii) did not apply to this cess, as Section 3B operates independently

The petitioner referred to an earlier case involving TCS, but the Court said that ruling was based on specific facts and did not apply here. In conclusion, the court upheld the additional ₹2.5 crore duty and ruled that it was valid under the law.

Delhi HC Upholds RPM for Distributor Reselling Unmodified Goods without Value Addition

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs D LIGHT ENERGY P. LTD. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 570

The Delhi High Court Bench upheld the use of the Resale Price Method (RPM) for benchmarking international transactions in a case involving a distributor reselling unmodified solar products without adding value.

The Delhi High Court, in ITA 53/2025, upheld this view and referred to its earlier ruling in Burberry India. It stated that when a distributor resells finished goods without modification, RPM is the most suitable method. The Court clarified that even if the distributor incurs advertising and marketing expenses, it doesn’t count as value addition if the goods remain unchanged. It also referred to OECD Guidelines and UN TP Manual, which support RPM in such cases. The Court found the appellant’s arguments unsupported by evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Royalty Not a Tax, 18% GST Payable on Mining Lease Payments: Patna HC

BROAD SON COMMODITIES PRIVATE LTD. vs THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 571

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court upheld the levy of 18% GST on royalty paid for mining leases, holding that royalty is not a tax but consideration for the supply of service.

The court ruled that royalty payments made under mining leases are liable to 18% GST and that there was no violation of any constitutional or legal provision. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Rural Works Dept’s TDS Delay: Patna HC Permits Dept to Decide on Equal Split of Compounding Charges Among Officers

Upendra Narayan vs The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar and Jharkhand CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 572

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court allowed the Rural Works Department of Bihar to decide whether compounding charges related to a delayed TDS deposit can be equally apportioned among four responsible officers.

The court also observed that the petitioner had not yet paid his 25% share as directed in the department’s letter dated 30.03.2022. It directed him to make the payment within four weeks, stating that only after this payment would the department consider the request for apportionment. With these directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Customs Dept must distinguish ‘Jewellery’ & ‘Personal ‘Jewellery’ while Considering Seizure: Delhi HC Orders Release of Gold on Condition of Re-Export

GOVIND VENNANKOT CHANDRASEKHARAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 574

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the customs department must distinguish ‘Jewellery’ and ‘Personal jewellery’ while considering the seizure of items for being in violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016. The court ordered the release of 85 gms on conditions.

The high court directed the Customs Department to release the detained gold ornaments to the petitioner subject to payment of applicable storage charges, with the condition that the items be re-exported. The release is to be effected within four weeks, either personally or through an authorised representative after due verification of credentials.

Separate Authorizations Mandatory for Non-Territorial AO of Dealer to Conduct VAT Audit and Assessment: Andhra Pradesh HC

M Vakula Devi vs The Commercial Tax Officer and Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 575

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an officer who is not the territorial Assessing Officer of a dealer must obtain separate authorizations for conducting an audit and for undertaking an assessment. In the absence of such dual authorizations, the proceedings conducted by such an officer would be invalid in law and liable to be set aside.

The Court also directed that the period between the date of the original impugned orders and the receipt of this judgment by the territorial officer shall be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

Delhi HC grants Relief to Traveler, Quashes Customs Order Over Invalid SCN Waiver

JAVED ALAM vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 573

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court set aside a customs order that detained goods, holding that if an oral SCN waiver has to be agreed to by the person concerned, the same ought to be in the form of a proper declaration, consciously signed by the person concerned.

The court, referring to the precedent in Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 319), held that such waivers do not meet the requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 15th January, 2025. The court further directed that the petitioner be granted a fresh hearing and disposed of the case.

Registration of Trust u/s 12A of Income Tax cannot be Rejected due to Delay Occured to Approve Amendment in Memorandum and Bye Laws: Kerala HC

THRISSUR CANINE CLUB vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 576

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court ruled that registration of a trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be rejected due to a delay occured to approving the amendment in the memorandum and Bye-laws.

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas set aside the orders and directed the respondent to re-consider the applications afresh, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months.

Challenge on Penalty Proceedings u/s 25(1) of KVAT Act : Kerala HC Directs SGST Dept to Pass an Order on Cross-examination Application

LITTLE FLOWER TRADERS vs STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 578

In  a recent case regarding challenge on penalty proceedings under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, 2003, the Kerala High Court has held that since the assessment proceedings have been remanded back to the first respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the first State Goods and Service Tax Department to pass appropriate orders on application.

 The court  disposed of the petition  by directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of seven days.

Refund of Old Income Tax Adjustment is not allowable after approval of resolution plan by NCLT: Orissa HC

Sree Metaliks Limited vs Director General of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 577

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has held that a refund of old Income tax adjustment is not allowable after approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

It was held that refund in respect of that assessment year cannot be due to petitioners, who stepped into shoes of management of the corporate debtors on and from 7th November, 2017 and proceeded to revive it per the approved resolution plan. Petitioners having assailed the adjustment made by filing the writ petition, cannot still rely on alleged omission to notice them on the adjustment.

‘Organized Crime’ and ‘Gangster’ Not the Same: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to GST Fraud Accused

Vineeta vs State of U.P. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 579

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a large-scale GST fraud case, while observing that ‘organized crime’ and ‘gangster’ charges require different thresholds for their application. The court held that merely having pending economic offense cases does not automatically justify invoking the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

The court held that invoking the Gangster Act in this case, based solely on pending GST fraud allegations, was premature and not sufficiently justified at this stage. The court allowed Vineeta’s bail application with standard conditions

Income Tax SCN on Variations Issued without  Providing time to respond: Calcutta HC Grants time to All India Trinamool Congress

All India Trinamool Congress vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 582

The Calcutta High Court granted time to All India Trinamool Congress to respond on the show cause notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with variations. The decision was made as the court found that the respondent department failed to provide time to respond.

The bench granted liberty to the petitioner to respond to the notice proposing variation dated 13th March, 2025 by 04:30 p.m. on 29th March, 2025. Accordingly, if such response is filed, the Faceless Assessment Unit shall upon accepting such response and upon providing opportunity of hearing, if sought for, shall take the proceeding under Section 148A of the said Act to its logical conclusion. The respondents are directed to communicate the aforesaid order to the concerned officer for him to take appropriate steps in the matter.

Calcutta HC allows Concessional Rate of Duty on Interstate Sale

M/S. N.P. TRADING COMPANY vs DEPUTY SECRETARY CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 583

The Calcutta High Court allowed the concessional rate of 2% on the subject transaction based on the admitted documents, more particularly the stand taken by the 6th respondent that the sale transaction is an inter- State sale.

Since the jurisdictional assessing officer of the petitioner is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, a positive direction cannot be issued to the said officer. Further the division bench of Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitatli Chatterjee held that the jurisdictional assessing officer of the petitioner shall extend concessional rate of tax to the petitioner on the subject transaction at the rate of 2%. The above direction be complied with by the 6th respondent within a period of eight weeks.

GST: Orissa HC Condones Delay in Invoking Rule 23 of OGST Rules Considering Willing to pay Late Fee and Penalty

M/s. Lokanath Naik vs Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 580

Lokanath Naik,  the petitioner challenged the Show cause notice issued for cancelling CGST registration.  Rule 23 of OGST deals with revocation of cancellation of registration.A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may 1 [subject to the provisions of rule 10B] submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21 , to such proper officer, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration 2 [or within such time period as extended by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, in exercise of the powers provided under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 ,] at the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner.

In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and the division bench of Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.

Service of GST Notices and Orders via Common Portal Valid, rules Madras High Court

M/s.Poomika Infra Developers vs State Tax Officer CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 584

In a significant ruling impacting Goods and Services Tax (GST) administration, the Madras High Court has held that service of notices, orders, or other communications through the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service under the GST Act. The decision came in a batch of writ petitions led by M/s. Poomika Infra Developers vs. State Tax Officer, with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq presiding.

While upholding the validity of service through the portal, the court, in light of equity and precedent, provided partial relief. It set aside the impugned orders on condition that the petitioners deposit 25% of the disputed tax amounts and be given a fresh opportunity to respond. The order also encouraged the GST department to consider issuing SMS or email alerts in tandem with uploads, albeit clarifying that such alerts are not mandatory for service to be valid. The petitions were thus disposed of with directions for conditional remand and reporting compliance within four weeks.

Failure to Avail Opportunity is different from Failure to Grant Opportunity of Hearing: Kerala HC Dismisses Petition against CGST Order

FALCON SYNERGY ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 581

While dismissing the petition against the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) order, the Kerala High Court held that failure to avail an opportunity granted is different from failure to grant an opportunity for hearing.

A single bench of Justice Kurian Thomas ruled that failure to avail the opportunity granted is different from failure to grant an opportunity of hearing. The bench viewed that the petitioner cannot agitate that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing. If the opportunity was not availed by the petitioner, it is due to its own default. The blame cannot be put upon the respondents. The court dismissed the petition,  reserving the liberty of the petitioner to prefer statutory remedies.

Incomplete Challan for Job Work under GST Rule 45 Violates Rule 55: Allahabad HC Upholds Seizure and Penalty u/s 129

M/S Famus India vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 585

The Allahabad High Court upheld the seizure and penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act citing that the incomplete challan for job workers under Rule 45 violates Rule 55 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Rules, 2017. It was observed that in such incompleteness, the action taken by the department is not arbitrary.

Citing the lack of merit in the petition and the non-compliance with procedural rules, the Court refused to interfere with the orders of the tax authorities and dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 129 of GST law was upheld.

No New Grounds Allowed at Appeal Stage Without Prior Notice: Allahabad HC Restores GST Registration

Ups Scs India Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 587

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ruled that new grounds cannot be introduced at the appellate stage without prior notice in the show cause proceedings and restored the petitioner’s GST registration.

The court held that introducing new grounds at the appellate stage, without confronting the petitioner with such grounds beforehand, was a violation of principles of natural justice. The court quashed the cancellation orders and directed the GST authorities to restore the petitioner’s registration. The writ petition was allowed.

GST Payment for Defect Liability Period in Public Works Contract : Allahabad HC Directs Dept to Consider Claim of Contractor

M/S Rakesh Pratap Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 586

In a recent ruling with regards to the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) payment for the defect liability period in the public works contract, the Allahabad High Court has instructed the State authorities to examine and decide on the claim raised by the contractor.

The High Court ordered that this decision must be taken within two months of the petitioner submitting a certified copy of the judgment. If any amount is found payable upon such determination, it shall be released within four weeks thereafter.

GST Fraud: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Accused in ₹31.18 Crore Fake ITC Scam involving 17 Shell Companies

Shivam Goyal vs Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 588

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the accused in a ₹31.18 crore Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) fake Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) scam involving 17 shell companies, noting that the trial is yet to commence, is likely to be prolonged, and that continued detention of the accused would serve no meaningful purpose.

The Court allowed the bail application without commenting on the merits of the case, directing that the bail applicant be released upon furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, and further ordered him to comply with all bail conditions as set by the lower court.

Trust amounts to Association of Person u/s 40(b) of Income Tax Act: Bombay HC

Mehta Jaising Combine vs Income Tax Officer Ward-27(8) Mumbai CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 590

The Bombay High Court ruled that the appellant trust qualified as an association of persons under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and upheld the disallowance of interest paid to beneficiaries.

The court held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence.

Income Tax Refund adjusted Despite 20% Pre-deposit and Pending Appeal: Bombay HC directs to Refund Adjusted Amount

Kishore Mohanlal Dingra vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 589

The Bombay High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to pay back the refund amount, which was erroneously adjusted against the tax demand on grounds that the appeal against the disputed year is already pending to date and petitioner has already made 20% pre-deposit.

Additionally, the Court instructed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously dispose of the pending appeal for AY 2016–17, and in any event, within a period of four months from the date of uploading of the order. With these directions, the Court made the rule absolute and concluded the matter.

GST S. 74 Invoked despite Reversing ITC Voluntarily before Initiation of Audit: Orissa HC to address Jurisdictional Dispute

M/s. Aditya Craft & Papers Private vs Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 592

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court to examine the jurisdictional validity of initiating assessment proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGS T) Act, 2017, particularly in cases involving voluntary reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) prior to the commencement of an audit. The matter is scheduled on June 17, 2025.

As an interim relief, the court directed that if the petitioner deposits the interest amount within four weeks, the penalty imposed by the demand order dated January 3, 2025, shall remain stayed until the next hearing on June 17, 2025.

Allahabad HC Excludes Time Spent in Bona Fide Litigation Before HC, SC u/s 14 of Limitation, Allows GST Appeal Before AA

M/S Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of State Tax U.P. Lko. And 2 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 591

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petitioner to pursue their statutory appeal before the appellate authority by excluding the time spent in bona fide litigation before the High Court and the Supreme Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional documents or case laws before the appellate authority during the reconsideration process.

Income Tax Authorities cannot Enforce Recovery on Protective Assessment: Kerala HC stays Coercive Proceedings

LOLIKA CHANDRABABU vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 594

The Kerala High Court has stayed coercive recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against a petitioner who was subjected to a protective assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court ruled that since the assessment in question was protective in nature, no recovery can be enforced until the pending appeal is disposed of.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that since the petitioner was assessed protectively, coercive recovery proceedings must be stayed. Consequently, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings shall remain in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. With this direction, the writ petition was disposed of.

Madhya Pradesh HC Warns DRI for Contempt Over Frozen Accounts Despite Stay

MUNDHRA EXIM PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR ASHISH MUNDHRA AND OTHERS vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 595

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to comply immediately or face harsh penalties for contempt regarding frozen accounts in spite of the stay. The division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh referred to a “colorable exercise of power” by DRI for the act of provisionally attached the petitioners’ bank accounts by determining out how to keep them temporarily attached for longer than that.

As a result, the notification made in accordance with Section 110(5) of the Customs Act of 1962 is revoked for lack of jurisdiction, and DRI is ordered to immediately defreeze the petitioners’ provisionally linked bank accounts.

FEMA Proceedings Cannot be Continued During Moratorium u/s 33(5) of IBC: Calcutta HC

Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 597

The Calcutta High Court has held that in light of the bar under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), all proceedings, including those that were ongoing at the time of the order, under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), cannot be continued or new proceedings can be started once a liquidation order against the corporate debtor is issued.

The corporate debtor may be sold as a going concern or its assets may be sold after liquidation. As a result, once CIRP is accepted, the corporate debtor’s assets cannot be seized and must be handled through liquidation or CIRP. The court quashed the notice as the proceedings pending under the Code and the orders passed.

Written Down Assets of Constituent Companies can be adjusted by Amalgamated Company Without Central Govt Approval: Bombay HC

Technova Imaging Systems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 596

The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government’s approval.

While allowing the appeal, the division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik ruled that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the assessee, the amalgamated company, lacked the Central Government’s approval to modify the written down value of the amalgamating companies’ assets based on depreciation that was actually permitted to them and to claim depreciation on such adjusted written down value of the amalgamating companies’ assets was not legally justified with the insertion of Section 72A in the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Challenge to S. 148A Order of Income Tax Not Maintainable under Article 226 Without Exceptional Grounds: Kerala HC dismisses Petition

GABI GAFOOR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 598

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court ruled that the challenge to order issued under Section 148A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable under Article 226 without exceptional grounds.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, relied on Supreme Court precedents in Renu Singh v. PCIT and Anshul Jain v. PCIT, which held that writ petitions challenging notices under Sections 148 and 148A are not maintainable when effective alternative remedies are available under the Income Tax Act.

Writ Petition Cannot be Filed Twice Against Same Dismissal Order: Delhi HC Rules in Favor of Customs

M/S WIDE IMPEX VS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT & ANR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 599

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the ground that the said order was already dismissed by the High Court and the same order cannot be challenged twice.

In light of the circumstances, the bench observed that the Petitioner has again,  effectively sought to challenge the same dismissal order passed by the Appellate Tribunal despite such challenge being previously dismissed by the order by the Delhi High Court itself. Thus, it was held that the Petitioner cannot have a second round of litigation on the same issue. Hence, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Madras HC Fines ₹75,000 on Taxpayer for Abusing PIL to Resist Kodaikanal Property Tax Increase

Baskar Vincent vs Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 600

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 75,000 on a taxpayer for misusing the public interest litigation (PIL) route to challenge the property tax revision implemented by the Kodaikanal Municipality and attempting to block the lawful process of property tax enhancement applicable to his own property.

Finding the petition to be a gross abuse of legal process, the court dismissed the writ petition and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Kodaikanal Municipality. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

CA’s name in CBI’s ‘Undesirable Contact Men’ List: Delhi HC directs CIC to Reconsider RTI Plea

XYZ vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 602

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Information Commissioner ( CIC ) to reconsider the RTI plea of a Chartered Accountant ( CA ) with regards to the inclusion of his name in the ‘Undesirable Contact Men’ ( UCM ) List of Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ) considering human rights of the petitioner.

The court observed that the CIC had failed to consider this aspect in its order and therefore remanded the matter to the CIC for fresh adjudication on whether the information sought falls within the exception under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

No Income Tax Payable on Reasonable Salary Paid to Chairperson of Charitable Educational Trust: Delhi HC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI VS IILM FOUNDATION CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 603

The Delhi High Court held that no income tax is payable on the reasonable salary paid to the Chairperson of a Charitable Educational Trust, ruling that such payment does not violate provisions under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court explained that the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied solely because the Chairperson is a related party, provided the remuneration is fair and corresponds to the services rendered. The appeals were dismissed.

Mere delay in Filing Applications For Recall or Review Cannot be a Reason for Rejecting Petition on Technical Ground of Delay: Bombay HC

The Official Liquidator VS Savannah Lifestyle Private Limited. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 601

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court held that mere delay in filing applications for recall or review cannot be a reason for rejecting petition on the technical ground of delay.

The court viewed that the order passed by the Court on 21 October 2022 on the basis of Minutes of Order dated 20 October 2022 deserves to be recalled both in application filed by the Bank as well as in the Review Petitions filed by Shaila Clubs and its suspended director.

Delhi HC to Decide GST Rate on Railway AC Units: 28% as General ACs or 18% as Railway Parts?

MS STESALIT LIMITED & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 604

In a pending writ petition, the Delhi High Court is examining whether Roof Mounted Package Unit (RMPU) air conditioning machines, specifically manufactured for Indian Railways, should be classified under HSN 8415 (attracting 28% GST) or HSN 8607 (attracting 18% GST applicable to railway parts).

The Court has permitted the adjudication proceedings to continue but directed that any final order passed shall not be given effect without the leave of the Court. The court directed the adjudicating authorities to consider the petitioner’s reply, the Advance Rulings, and the impugned circular during adjudication. The matter is next listed for hearing on 9th May 2025.

Amalgamated Company Can Adjust Asset Value and Claim Depreciation Without Central Govt Approval: Bombay HC

Technova Imaging Systems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 605

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that an amalgamated company can adjust the written down value (WDV) of assets acquired from its amalgamating companies and claim depreciation on such adjusted value without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench referred to the reasoning in EID Parry (India) Ltd., which clearly distinguished between carry forward of losses and the adoption of correct WDV post-amalgamation. The court quashed the ITAT’s order and restored the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had allowed the appellant’s claim.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates