Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [April 5th to April 11th,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 5th April 2025 to 11th April 2025)

Corruption Case Against Public Servant Cannot be Quashed, Stating Absence of Preliminary Inquiry before FIR Registration: Supreme Court

STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 155

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), a preliminary investigation is not a necessary step before filing a corruption complaint against a public official. It further stated that the mere fact that no preliminary investigation was carried out prior to the filing of the FIR does not exonerate a case against a public official.

The court observed that drawing sustenance from the case of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, (2021) it was specifically stated that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before the filing of an FIR. While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the impugned order.

No Bail in Corporate Fraud u/s 447 of Companies Act Without Satisfying Two Key Conditions: Supreme Court

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE vs ADITYA SARDA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 154

The Supreme Court of India ruled that bail under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals with corporate fraud, cannot be granted unless the twin conditions prescribed under Section 212(6) are strictly satisfied.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders and directed the accused to surrender before the Special Court within one week. The court dismissed appeals against anticipatory bail granted by the Special Court itself in a few cases where no non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings were involved.

No ITC for Dealer on Tax-Exempt Sales: Supreme Court Upholds Disallowance u/s 7(c) of UP VAT Act

NEHA ENTERPRISES vs COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 153

The Supreme Court of India held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit ( ITC) on sales that are exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax (UP VAT) Act, 2008, even if such sales are made to manufacturer-exporters using Form-E.

The court dismissed the civil appeal and held that the prohibition under Section 13(7) is a legislative mandate that cannot be overridden by policy considerations or administrative circulars.

Supreme Court upholds Piramal’s Resolution Plan For DHFL

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED vs 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 152

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Resolution Plan put forth by Piramal Capita and Housing Finance for the former Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) and decided that Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd would receive the money recovered from the fraudulent activities at Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL).

The bench overturned the NCLAT order that ordered the creditors of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) to reevaluate the resolution plan put forth by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance and upheld the resolution plan that was approved by the COC in 2021, according to which a national value of Rs. 1 was assigned to potential recoveries of Rs. 45,000 crores.

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/supreme-court-upholds-piramals-resolution-plan-for-dhfl/505354/

Limitation Period under IBC Starts From Date of Judgment Pronounced in Open Court: Supreme Court

A RAJENDRA vs GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 151

The Supreme Court held that the incident which triggers the running of the limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 is the the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website.

The bench rejected the appeals against the orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as time-barred. The Court also held that when no certified copy was applied, benefit of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act cannot be claimed.

Supreme Court Condones Delay in S.151 Matter on Sanction for Notice in Terms of Judgment in Rajeev Bansal Case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE VS SANGEETA SAILESH BHOOLABHAI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 150

The Supreme Court of India recently condoned delays in the Income Tax Department’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s quashing of reassessment notices issued to an Assessee, while calling on the Revenue to follow the guidelines laid down in Union of India & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal (2024).

In light of such observations, the Supreme Court directed that the Assessing Officers shall dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by the Court in the Rajeev Bansal judgment, while reaffirming that aggrieved parties may pursue the appellate remedies in law except for the issues which have already reached finality on the basis of the law.

Tax Authorities must Adhere to Official Clarifications from Higher Authority and Cannot Reclassify Arbitrarily: Madras HC

M/S.Aathees Wetcasting Materials (P) Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 440

In a recent judgement, the Madras High Court held that tax authorities must follow official clarifications from higher officials and cannot reclassify tax liabilities arbitrarily.

The court found the AO’s action to be a colorable exercise of power, as it disregarded a valid directive from a higher official. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned assessment order.

Relief to Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences: Kerala HC Rules Order U/s 263 as Open Remand Not Needing Independent Challenge

MALABAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LTD vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 442

By overturning the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision, the Kerala High Court held that the orders made under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can’t be construed as a closed remand under any circumstances.

The court ruled that the Section 263 order was an open remand, meaning the assessee was not required to challenge it separately. As a result, it was held that the tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal on this ground.Based on this finding, the court set aside the tribunal’s decision and restored the appeal for reconsideration on merits.

₹2,500 Crore GST Demand on Coca Cola: Bombay HC Stays Revenue Proceedings after Noting Infirmity in Undervaluation Claims

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 443

The Bombay High Court recently stayed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand of approximately ₹2,500 crore raised against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., observing that the revenue authorities’ interpretation of the statutory provisions in claiming that Coca Cola had undervalued its goods was prima facie flawed.

Furthermore, the Bench prima facie observed infirmity with the impugned order and thus granted an ad-interim relief staying the implementation of the order and preventing any coercive steps pursuant to the show-cause notice or the final order. The Bombay High Court proceeded to post the matter to 29 April, 2025 for admission and possible disposal.

Reassessment Notice Beyond 10 Years Limit: Delhi HC Quashes Notice u/s 149 of Income Tax Act

JANUS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 444

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was issued beyond the permissible 10-year limit under the amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

The court clarified that for non-searched persons, the ten-year period is to be computed from the date the seized materials are handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. As the notice dated 06 February 2024 attempted to reassess AY 2014–15, the court found it clearly beyond the statutory timeframe. The court allowed the writ petition.

Kerala HC Directs Income Tax Commissioner  to Expeditiously Dispose of Rectification Petition filed u/s 154 of Income Tax Act

UNITAC ENERGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 445

The Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Commissioner to expeditiously dispose of the rectification petition filed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The single bench of Justice Kurian Thomas viewed that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction and directed  the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on rectification petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Karnataka HC Quashes Rejection of GST Appeal Filed on 90th Day, Finds It Within Limitation

S K TAKAPPA S/O KALAPPA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 446

The Karnataka High Court quashed the rejection of a Goods Service Tax (GST) appeal filed on the 90th day, holding that it was within the time limit prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act,2017.

A single member bench comprising S.G.Pandit (Judge)  also noted that the petitioner had filed a rectification application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, if any. Since the appeal was within the condonable period, the second respondent should have considered it properly. Instead, it failed to apply its mind and rejected the appeal without giving the assessee a chance to be heard. In short,the petition filed was disposed of.

Post-Sale Discounts allowed u/s 15(3) of GST Act: Bombay HC in Interim Relief to Hindustan Coca-Cola

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 443

The Bombay High Court has made a preliminary observation that Post-Sale Discounts are allowable under section 15(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in a case pertaining to alleged contraventions of the Goods and Services Tax Act by way of discounts on the basis of past transactions by Hindustan Coca-Cola.

The bench of Justices Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and B. P. Colabawalla noted that, “As far as the interim relief is concerned, we find that the strong prima facie case is made out for staying the effect and implementation of the impugned order. We say this because as recorded earlier, we do not find at least prima facie that the reasoning employed by the 3rd Respondent is correct.” The case is now listed for hearing to 29th April, 2025.

Bombay HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Over Change of Opinion and No Failure to Disclose Facts

Tata Communications Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 450

The High Court of Bombay, quashed an income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee for Assessment Year(AY) 2014–15, holding that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked any failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

The assessee had also asked the department to treat its earlier return as a response to the Section 148 notice, which the court accepted as valid compliance.As the reassessment proceedings lacked legal basis, the court quashed both the reassessment notice and the assessment order.

GST Rate Hike on Pre-Existing Work Order: Karnataka HC Directs Consideration of Representation in Eight Weeks

ATHREYA CONSTRUCTIONS vs THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 452

The High Court of Karnataka, directed the concerned authorities to consider the assessee’s representation within eight weeks regarding the applicable Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) rate on a work order issued before the rate hike, noting that the work was carried out when the GST rate stood at 12% and a supporting circular backed the assessee’s claim.

Respondents were directed to consider the representation in light of the Circular and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.In short,the writ petition was disposed of.

Non-response to GST Notices due to Father’s Illness: Karnataka HC quashes Ex-parte Order

M/S. NAKODA AUTO DISTRIBUTORS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 449

The High Court of Karnataka, quashed the ex-parte order and the summary order after noting that the petitioner could not respond to Goods and Service Tax(GST) show-cause notices due to his father’s prolonged illness and eventual demise on 13.02.2024.

Considering these circumstances, the Court quashed the ex-parte orders dated 31.10.2023 and 16.11.2023 and granted the petitioner thirty days to file objections. It directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority on 06.03.2025. The Court clarified that the petitioner could not raise the issue of limitation and that any amount recovered through attachment would be subject to the final decision of the authority.

Works Contract with RVNL for Doubling Railway Track and Allied Construction Attracts GST @ 12%: Madras HC

STS-KEC(JV) vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 447

The Madras High Court recently held that works contract awarded by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) to a developer for the purposes of railway infrastructure development is liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the concessional rate of 12%, and not 18%.

In light of all the observations, the Bench proceeded to set aside the impugned orders while clarifying that the contract between the Petitioner and RVNL would be covered by the Notification 11 of 2017 CGST (RATE) dated 28.06.2017 as amended vide Notification No. 20/2017 dated 22.08.2017, Notification No.8 of 2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No. 94 dated 22.8.2017 CT & RE and liable to tax at 12%.

Telangana HC Sets Aside Income Tax Garnishee Notices, Directs Decision on Pending Appeals and Stay Application First

M/S Unique Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 451

The High Court of Telangana, set aside income tax garnishee notices issued, against bank accounts of the assessee observing that the notices were issued despite the pendency of appeals and a stay application.

As a result, the bench set aside the garnishee notice dated 08.01.2025 and directed the authorities to decide the appeal and stay application first, and then proceed as per law. In short,the writ petition was disposed of.

Land wrongly listed under prohibited properties due to attachment: Telangana HC directs authorities to act on de-notification request

M/s Vallabha Estates Pvt. Ltd vs The State of Telangana CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 453

The Telangana High Court, while disposing of a writ petition, directed the concerned authorities to consider and act on a representation seeking de-notification of land that was wrongly listed under prohibited properties due to an attachment.

A single member bench of N.V. Shravan Kumar (Justice) noted that the assessee’s representation dated 02.01.2025 was still pending. It directed the authorities to consider it and take action as per law within three weeks from receiving the order and inform the assessee. In short,the writ petition was disposed of.

Whatsapp Chats Revealed Transactions of ₹1 Crore: Rajasthan HC Upholds Income Tax Proceedings

Giriraj Pugalia S/o Ratan Lal Pugalia vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 454

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the legitimacy of transactions of ₹1 Crore, unearthed on the basis of Whatsapp chats against which proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were sought to be conducted.

After examining the material and the legal framework, the Rajasthan High Court held that digital evidence like WhatsApp chats, when corroborated by seized documents and other tangible evidence, falls within the ambit of “documents” under Section 153C and thus proceeded to dismiss the Petition, after the finding the case to be satisfy the requirements to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delay in Paying ₹80.26 Cr Price Adjustment Under GST Linked Works Contract: Telangana HC Orders 6% Interest for Late Payment

IVRCL- Navayuga-SEW vs State of Telangana Represented by Special Chief Secretary to Government CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 457

The Telangana High Court, while dealing with a Goods and Service Tax(GST) linked works contract dispute, directed payment of interest at 6% per annum for delay in releasing ₹80.26 crore towards price adjustment, despite an earlier court order.

Additionally, the Court permitted the petitioner to request constitution of a Disputes Adjudication Board (DAB) under Clause 20 of the contract to adjudicate further claims such as interest on disputed portions, and directed the respondents to constitute the DAB within six weeks of such a request. In short the writ petition was allowed in part.

Leave Encashment Payment Made After Financial Year not Deductible under Income Tax Act Without Accrued Liability: Himachal Pradesh HC

H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 456

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh,ruled that leave encashment payments made after the end of the financial year cannot be claimed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act,1961 unless the liability had actually accrued during that year.

The Court concluded that the deduction was rightly disallowed since the liability was not incurred in the relevant year and Section 43B(f) had to be followed. In short,the appeal was dismissed.

Calcutta HC Stays Recovery of Outstanding GST Dues considering Non Constitution of GSTAT

Rockfield Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 458

In a recent petition which is against the appellate order that allows the initiation of the Goods and Service tax recovery proceedings , the Calcutta High Court stayed the same considering the non constitution of Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

As the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted,the court viewed that the petition should be heard. Since, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case, there shall be an unconditional stay of the demand of the Appellate order dated 19th March, 2024, for a period of two weeks from date. The single bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the petitioner to make payment of 10% of the balance amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount already deposited in terms of Section 107(6) of the said Act, within two weeks from date, the interim order passed herein, shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier.

Relief to Air Asia: Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Pre-Amendment Companies Act Due to Retrospective Decriminalization

AIR ASIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KARNATAKA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 459

The High Court of Karnataka, granted relief to Air Asia (India) Private Limited by quashing criminal proceedings initiated under the pre-amendment version of Section 197(15) of the Companies Act,2013.

As a result, the bench found that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were not maintainable and quashed the complaint dated June 18, 2022, and the order of cognizance dated June 22, 2022, passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences in Bengaluru. However, it allowed the authorities to proceed under Section 454 of the Companies Act, if applicable. In short, the petition was allowed.

Jurisdiction Transferred without Following S.127 of Income Tax Act: Himachal Pradesh HC quashes Assessment

M/s Deluxe Enterprises vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 460

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, quashed the assessment order passed by the Baddi officer for Assessment Year 2009–10, holding that the transfer of jurisdiction was made without following the mandatory procedure under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

As the petitioner had objected to the jurisdiction, the issue should have been addressed after hearing the petitioner and giving reasons for the transfer. The Court allowed the appeal and writ petition, and quashed the assessment orders. However, it clarified that fresh proceedings could still be initiated by following the proper legal route.

25 Days Delay in Filing Audit report due to Covid 19 Pandemic: Kerala HC sets aside Income Tax Order Declining to Condone Delay

ST.JOSEPH EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 462

Relying In Re cognizance for the extension of limitation Case, the Kerala High Court sets aside the income tax order, which declined to condone the 25 days delay in filing Audit report. It was found that the delay in filing the audit report occurred at a time when Covid-19 Pandemic had struck the country.

 Since the change in dates has caused confusion to many persons and the delay is very minimal, the single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of view that a rigid stance ought not to have been adopted. The court set aside the order declining to condone the delay in filing the audit report.

Failure to Respond to GST SCN send to email Despite Reminder not amounting to Invalid Service: Kerala HC Dismisses Petition

KVJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 461

The Kerala High Court  has dismissed the petition challenging the order of determination under Section 73 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST), while observing that failure to respond to Goods and Service Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN) send to email despite reminder does not amounts to invalid service of notice.

The writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies if available and in accordance with law.

Kerala HC Directs to dispose of Income Tax Appeal filed 9 Years Ago

SREE KALIKA PARAMESWARI VISHWA KARMA SAMAJ SABHA BANGARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 463

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court dirceted the income tax department to dispose of the income tax apparel filed 9 years ago. Considering the long year gap in disposing apapeal, the bench directed to dispose of the appeal within 3 months.

Considering the long delay, the court made a direction to the competent appellate authority to dispose of  the income tax appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months.

Win for TATA Steel: Jharkhand HC Directs ₹1.23 Cr GST Refund for Wrongful Rejection of ITC on Compensation Cess

TATA Steel Ltd. vs State of Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 466

In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court directed the State GST department to refund Rs. 1.23 crore to Tata Steel Ltd., ruling that the rejection of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim on Compensation Cess was based on invalid and extraneous grounds not supported by law.

The court also observed that the appellate authority had failed to apply the correct legal principles, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court quashed the refund rejection order and the appellate order and directed the State GST authorities to process and refund Rs. 1,23,22,617 along with interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the court’s order. The writ petition was allowed.

No Interest on VAT Refund for the Period When Dealer Caused the Delay: Delhi High Court

LITHIUMURBANTECHNOLOGIESPVT.LTD vs COMMISSIONEROFVALUEADDEDTAX &ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 468

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that a dealer is not entitled to interest on a VAT refund for the period during which the delay in processing the refund was caused by the dealer itself.

The court found no merit in the claim for interest prior to February 2023 and upheld the Special Commissioner’s order dated July 5, 2023. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The court allowed the request, and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Delhi High Court directs Refund for Confiscated Gold Due to Customs Department’s Inaction

SAJAD AHMED KAK vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 467

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to pass a refund order within one month in favour of the petitioner whose confiscated gold was disposed of without proper intimation. The Court passed this order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Sajad Ahmed Kak, who sought the return or refund of the value of three gold bars weighing 457.95 grams, confiscated from him over a decade ago.

Given the rise in gold prices and the prolonged inaction, the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Manoj Jain directed the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether any notice was given to the petitioner prior to disposal, ascertain the amount recovered from the disposal, and determine if any interest is payable in law. The refund order is to be passed within one month from the date of the judgment. The petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek revival if the directions are not complied with.

Orissa High Court Orders Reconsideration of Delayed Form-10B Filing, Citing Sufficient Cause

M/s. Joharimal High School, Cuttack vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 465

The Orissa High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to reconsider the delayed filing of Form-10B by a petitioner, stating that the explanation offered by the assessee constituted sufficient cause under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice B.P. Routray set aside the impugned order and allowed the condonation application. The Court directed the authority to now consider Form-10B on its merits and decide the matter with reasons in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of the order.

Procedural Issues Like Refund Delays, Non-Communication can be Disposed on First Hearing If Dept Gives Instructions to Counsels: Delhi HC

M/S RAJ INTERNATIONAL vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI WEST & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 471

Recently, the Delhi High Court, in a writ petition, has provided directions to the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) department regarding the disposal of procedural matters on the first day of hearing.

Accordingly, the Court impressed upon the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi Zone, to consider deputing at least two officers from the litigation section. These officers would serve as liaisons with various Commissionerates under the GST department to ensure quick coordination and instruction to counsels. The matter is now scheduled to be listed on 21st April 2025.

Exhibition Gold Rs. 4.71cr Seized at Railway Station Over Missing Bill book: Calcutta HC backs Action of RPF and Income Tax Authorities

Dia Gold Jewels Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-2 & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 470

The Calcutta High Court upheld the seizure of gold totaling ₹4.71 crores taken for exhibition by the Income Tax Department and Railway Protection Force (RPF) at the Ranchi Railway Station in November 2022 on grounds of absence of bill book or alternate source for providing cash memos. The seizure of the jewelry was held by the court as valid and complying with the procedures of Income tax Act, 1961.

The High Court also reiterated the principle that legitimate business transactions must be supported by complete and accurate documentation, particularly when goods of high value are in transit.

GST Dept Cannot Withhold Refund Permitted by Appellate Authority in absence of Contrary Decision: Delhi HC directs to Process Refund with Interest

SHALENDER KUMAR vs COMMISSIONER DELHI WEST CGST COMMISSIONERATE & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 469

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department cannot withhold the refund permitted by the appellate authority as no review order has been passed against the order.

The Court observed that unless a timely and valid challenge is instituted, the refund order cannot be unilaterally disregarded. It further noted that unjustified withholding of refunds is contrary to the law and financially detrimental to the revenue due to accruing interest.

No Interest or Penalty on Past IGST Imports Under Advance Authorization: Bombay HC Rules 2024 Amendment Applies Prospective

A. R. Sulphonates Private Limited vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 472

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that no interest, penalty, or redemption fine could be levied on importers for unpaid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) under the Advance Authorization Scheme for imports made before August 16, 2024, and held amendment applies prospectively.

The court set aside the impugned adjudication order to the extent that it imposed interest, penalty, and fine, and declared that the 2024 amendment to Section 3(12) of the Tariff Act applies only prospectively. The writ petition was allowed.

Non-compliance with GST Rules for Job Work Transport: Allahabad HC Confirms Penalty Due to Incomplete Challan

M/S Famus India vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 475

The High Court of Allahabad,confirmed the penalty due to non-compliance with Goods and Service Tax(GST) Rules for job work transport, finding that the petitioner failed to issue a complete challan.

The Court examined the challan produced by the ACSC and found it lacked necessary details, violating the Rules. The bench concluded that the proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act were not arbitrary. In short,the writ petition was dismissed.

Rebate Claim: Madras HC Rules Cenvat Credit Not Liable to Lapse Under Rule 11(3)(i) of CCR

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s.Valli Textile Mills CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 478

The High Court of Madras, dismissed writ appeals filed by the department in a rebate claim dispute, holding that Cenvat credit was not liable to lapse under Rule 11(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

However, the court clarified that granting relief did not imply endorsement of the appellate authority’s reasoning, nor did it examine the issue of retrospective application of Rule 11(3). In short,the writ appeal were dismissed.

Orissa HC Grants Relief to Petitioner for One-Hour Delay in Filing Audit Report

Silicon Institute of Technology vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 473

In a recent judgment, the Orissa High Court granted relief to an assessee for a marginal delay of just over an hour in uploading its audit report in Form 10B.

The court found the impugned order denying condonation to be arbitrary and lacking proper reasoning, thereby quashing the matter. The Orissa High Court also directed that the audit report filed by the petitioner be treated as due compliance, thereby granting relief to the petitioner.

9 Shell Firms and ₹23.66 Crore GST ITC Fraud: Faridabad Sessions Court denies Bail to Accused

The Faridabad Sessions Court recently dismissed a bail application filed by an accused who was deemed to have orchestrated a large-scale fraud involving the creation of nine shell firms to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹23.66 crores under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

An interesting observation was made in terms of Inderjeet Singh @ Laddy and others Vs. Punjab (2014) where it was held that there cannot be any settled precedents, especially in criminal cases. Noting that there was every danger of the course of justice being derailed, should the accused be enlarged on bail, the Sessions Court proceeded to reject the bail application of Arun Garg.

Right to Cross Examination under Customs Act : Madras HC directs to pass a speaking order on request of DRI Officer’s Cross Examination

G.Indraprasath vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 480

The High Court of Madras, directed the adjudicating authority  under the Customs Act to pass a speaking order on the petitioner’s request to cross-examine specific Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI) officers before proceeding with the adjudication of show cause notices.

Justice Abdul Quddhose  directed the authorities to decide on the petitioners’ request for cross-examination based on merit and in line with the law, after giving a personal hearing. If the request was to be rejected, a detailed speaking order had to be passed and communicated within a week. Only after this, the authorities could proceed with final adjudication based on the show cause notices.

Notices uploaded under incorrect GST Portal Tab: Allahabad HC quashes demand and allows Fresh Notice

M/s Hindustan Pipes Sales vs State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 479

The High Court of Allahabad, quashed the demand order quashed the demand order after finding that the notices were uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab on the Goods and Service Tax(GST) portal instead of the ‘Due Notices and Orders’ tab, which prevented the petitioner from responding in time.

The division bench of  Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra relying on the above judgment, allowed the present writ petition and quashed the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax.The authority was directed to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days’ clear time and proceed in accordance with law.

Bogus Purchases: Bombay HC Sustains ₹6 Crore Income Tax Addition using Peak of Purchases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12 vs M/s Drisha Impex Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 481

The Bombay High Court recently used the peak of purchases method to ascertain and uphold an income tax addition of ₹6.15 crore on a trader with regard to alleged bogus purchases done during the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

In light of the observations, the High Court proceeded to reverse the order passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, and answered the case in favour of the Revenue, restoring the addition made by the assessment officers in the assessment orders.

GST: Madras HC quashes ITC Denial for Late GSTR-3B Filing Citing Retrospective CGST Act Amendment

M/s.Shanker Impexx vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 477

The High Court of Madras,quashed the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for late filing of GSTR-3B, citing the retrospective amendment to the Central Goods and Service Tax(CGST) Act,2017.

Taking these developments into account, the Court quashed the earlier orders, directed the Department not to proceed on the issue of limitation, and ordered de-freezing of bank accounts. It also allowed refund or adjustment of any amount already recovered. Since the present case involved the same issue, the bench allowed the Writ Petition on the same lines.

Applicability of TDS deduction from Doctors Engaged by Hospital: Kerala HC Directs to Dispose of Income Tax Appeal of Amrita Institute of Medical Science

AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) KOCHI (2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 476

In a ruling in favour of Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research, the Kerala High Court directed the income tax department to dispose of the appeal within 3 months.The matter was related to non disposal of appeal on applicability of Tax deducted at source (TDS) deduction made to doctors engaged by the hospital.

The bench directed the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders oappeals relating to the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months. It was further held that till then, all coercive proceedings pursuant  assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance.

Arbitrary Adjustment in Income Tax S.143(1) Intimation Order: Patna HC Imposes Rs. 50,000 Cost for Delayed Litigation

Alkem Laboratories Limited vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 474

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Patna imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for delayed litigation, following a challenge by the petitioner against an arbitrary adjustment in the Income Tax Section 143(1) intimation order.

While interest was paid, the court decided to impose a cost of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for the litigation. The amount was to be paid to the Lawyers’ Association Welfare Benevolent Fund within four months of receiving the order.

GST Imposed under Wrong Head: Allahabad HC Directs NOIDA to reimbruse Penalty Imposed u/s 73 of GST Act

Surender Gupta vs State Gst / Additional Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 483

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) was recently directed by the Allahabad High Court to reimburse the assesee the amount that was assessed as a tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The decision was based on the finding that the GST was imposed under the wrong head.

The bench had found that NOIDA had acknowledged its error in failing to deposit the petitioner’s tax under the incorrect heading. The Court determined that the contested orders were not capricious in light of these factors. Relying on decision of the Supreme Court in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another regarding computation of compensation, Justice Piyush Agrawal directed NOIDA to pay Rs.19,22,778/- (the penalty determined by the assessing authority) to the petitioner.

J&K High Court Stays ₹16,260 Crore GST Demand Against Jammu & Kashmir Bank

M/s Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Union of India and Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 482

In a recent order, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh stayed the recovery of a GST demand and penalty totaling Rs. 16,261 crore issued against Jammu and Kashmir Bank.

The bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani observed that the matter raised huge legal issues and ordered an interim stay on the GST demand notice. The case is scheduled for the next hearing on May 7, 2025.

Importer Aware of IEC Code Misuse: Delhi HC Upholds ₹83 Lakh Penalty in Customs Duty Evasion

UMESH KUMAR VS PR COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 484

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court found that importers were aware of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) misuse and upheld a penalty and customs duty demand of Rs. 83 lakh.

The Court explained that the appellant, as the IEC holder, had a duty to ensure it was not misused. The court dismissed the appeal, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

Challenge against 12% Forest Development Tax On Forest Products: Karnataka HC Directs to follow Ruling of Apex Court

THE KALIKA KRUPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 485

The Karnataka High Court in a challenge against the 12 % Forest Development Tax on forest products , dircted the parties to follow the ruling of apex court which is pending now. The bench stated that the matter will be according to the final decision of supreme court.

The court held that the respondents would be at liberty to take further action only after disposal of the said matters by issuing fresh demand of tax or take action so far as the petitioner is concerned, wherever the FDT is already collected by the respondents. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Override CESTAT Remand Directions: Gujarat HC Imposes ₹1,000 Token Cost

M/S AKSHAR PRECISION TUBES PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CE VADODARA II CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 488

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court quashed an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST for disregarding specific remand directions issued by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000 on the respondent authority for violating judicial propriety.

The court held that the Commissioner’s actions were without jurisdiction and contrary to the judicial hierarchy. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be reassigned to another officer for fresh adjudication strictly in line with CESTAT’s remand within 12 weeks. The writ petition was allowed.

Entire Amount of Assessed Tax has to be Paid In Absence of Amnesty Schemes: Kerala HC

C.Y CHERIAN vs STATE OF KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 490

The Kerala High Court has ruled that, lacking amnesty plans, the full amount of taxes must be paid after they have been assessed. According to Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas‘ bench, the petitioner even cooperated with the ruling by making the first installment payment. He later changed his mind, though, and requested that a portion of the money be accepted in order to cover the entire amount of the tax claimed. There is no comparable procedure in the legal field.

The court decided that as the petitioner had not used any statutory remedies, the assessment ruling was final. Therefore, using Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is inappropriate.

An Order u/s 161 of DGST Act rejecting  Rectification Application can’t be passed without Personal Hearing: Delhi HC

HVR SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED VS SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 67 & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 489

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, in accordance with proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an assessee cannot be heard before a judgment rejecting their rectification plea is issued.

The court set aside the order in the rectification application with a direction to the department to decide it afresh after affording a hearing to the petitioner.

Kerala HC Affirms GST on Services and Mutual Benefit Schemes given by Indian Medical Association to its Members from 2022

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 491

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the levy of Goods and Service Tax (GST) on services and mutual benefit schemes rendered by the Kerala State Branch of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) to its members, permitting its imposition prospectively from January 1, 2022.

Since the 2021 Amendment became operational only on January 1, 2022, the Kerala High Court held that the applicability of GST on services and mutual benefit schemes provided by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) only from January 1, 2022 and not from any date before it.

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