Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [March 8th to March 14th,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 8th March 2025 to 14th March 2025)

Provisional Bank Account Attachment ends Once Final Order is Passed u/s 74 of CGST Act: Supreme Court OM PRAKASH GUPTA vs PR. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 140

The Supreme Court of India in a recent matter laid reference to the obiter in a prior decision where it was held that a provisional bank account attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST), 2017 Act ceases to have effect once a final order under Section 74 is passed.

In light of the observations made, the Supreme Court proceeded to dispose of the Special Leave Petition and all related pending applications.

Supreme Court Directs Nowhera Shaik to Pay ₹25 Crore to ED, Warning Revocation of Bail in Heera Gold Scam Case NOWHERA SHAIK & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 139

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a final ultimatum to Nowhera Shaik, founder and managing director of Heera Gold Exim Pvt Ltd, to deposit ₹25 crore with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) within a period of three months or face revocation of her current bail.

The court scheduled the next hearing for July 14, 2025, by which time Shaik must either comply with the Supreme Court’s ultimatum or face immediate legal consequences.

Stamp Duty Not Payable by Wife for Flat Acquired as Part of Compromise in Divorce Case: Supreme Court ARUN RAMESHCHAND ARYA vs PARUL SINGH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 138

The Supreme Court recently excluded a wife from paying stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”) if she got an apartment as part of a settlement with her husband in a divorce dispute.

The court noted that the disputed flat is clearly the focus of the agreement and, as such, is a component of the proceedings before this court. Therefore, the exclusion stipulated in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 will be applicable, and stamp duty will not be required for the registration of the flat in question in the respondent-wife’s sole name.

Supreme Court Criticizes NCLAT’s Long Order on Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency of Cases POWER INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA vs POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 137

The  supreme court while setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order that rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , expressed the wonder on action of spenting a great deal of time and energy crafting a 17-page ruling on a delay condonation application, despite having a large backlog of cases pending. The Supreme Court criticized the approach of NCLAT.

As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the NCLAT’s November 7, 2023 judgment, granted the plea for a delay condonation, and instructed the NCLAT to hold the appeal hearing in compliance with the law.

Execution of Penalties under Consumer Protection Act can still be carried out despite IBC moratorium: Supreme Court SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL vs BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 136

In a recent case, the Supreme Court  ruled that penalty procedures under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”) are exempt from the interim moratorium provided by Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

While dismissing the appeal, the court held that the moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws and the Appellant was directed to comply with the penalties imposed by the NCDRC within eight weeks.

Attachment of Property by Income Tax Dept. Cannot be made Indefinitely Without Pursuing Steps to Resolve Matter: Delhi HC FASTTRACK TIEUP PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 331

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.

While granting the petition, the bench concluded that although respondent no. 2 had started the attachment process by issuing the prohibitory order, respondent no. 2 had not taken any further steps to retrieve the unpaid sum.  Retaining the properties indefinitely without taking further action to address the issue is prohibited.

S.110 of Customs Act and S.67 of CGST Act are Pari Materia; No ‘Sufficient Cause’ for Continued Retention of Goods: Delhi HC M/S KASHISH OPTICS LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 333

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 are pari materia, requiring them to be interpreted in a similar manner.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court directed the release of the seized goods upon the petitioner making a deposit as per the valuation while also clarifying that the existence of a provisional release mechanism under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017 does not negate the requirement under Section 67(7) to show sufficient cause before extending the seizure period.

Taxpayer Fails to Respond to SCN and Had No Business at Registered Address: Calcutta HC Upholds GST Registration Cancellation Md. Firoz vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 332

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST registration after the assessee failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and was found to have no business presence at the registered address.

The court ruled that no interference was warranted as the petitioner had failed to establish his case and had not availed the opportunities given to him during the proceedings. The cancellation of GST registration was upheld.

No Seizure Extension Notice Provided before Conclusion of Six-Month Period: Delhi HC Orders Release of Spectacles and Frames M/S KASHISH OPTICS LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 333

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the GST Department’s failure to issue a notice before extending the seizure period beyond six months invalidates the continued retention of goods, while ordering the immediate release of spectacles and frames seized from the Petitioner.

In light of all the observations made, the Delhi High Court ordered the immediate release of the seized spectacles and frames upon the petitioner making a deposit as per the valuation.

Cross-Objections not Maintainable u/s 260A of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 334

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that cross-objections are not maintainable under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, clarifying that the provision does not allow respondents in tax appeals to file objections against findings that were adverse to them.

The court explained that each statute defines its own appeal rights, and Section 260A does not authorize cross-objections in any form. The court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the assessee-respondent.

Bombay HC upholds Addition on Bogus Purchase u/s 69C of Income Tax Act in Absence of Explanation on Source Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs Kanak Impex (India) Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 336

The Bombay High Court has upheld the addition on bogus purchase under Section 69 C of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the respondent-assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.

It was the respondent-assessee’s responsibility to enter the re-assessment proceedings, fulfill the initial burden of demonstrating the purchases, and get any relevant facts.  The respondent-assessee’s arguments on this matter are to be disregarded since they have not participated in the re-assessment proceedings.

Gujarat HC Order Revenue to Pay 6% Interest on Delayed Refund of ₹2 Crore under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020 M/S SAHIL TOTAL INFRATECH PVT. LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 335

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court directed the Income Tax Department to pay 6% interest per annum for a period of 20 months on the delayed refund of ₹2,20,41,042 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2020.

Holding that the fault may not be attributed to either party, the Court ordered the Department to pay interest at 6% per annum for a period of 20 months (from June 1, 2022, to January 31, 2024), amounting to ₹22,04,104. The Court directed that this amount be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Issuing 4 Years consolidated notice is impermissible: Bombay HC Stays Rs. 71.23 Crore GST Demand MS GRAINOTCH INDUSTRIES LTD vs THE UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 338

The Bombay High Court has stayed Rs. 71.23 Crore Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand  holding that issuing  4 years consolidated notice.

The court ruled that the order will be temporarily stayed until a later date since it was initially satisfied with the reasons made by the petitioner’s attorney.

Existence of International Transaction must be Proven before Applying Transfer Pricing Benchmarking: Delhi HC PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT.LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 339

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the existence of an international transaction must be established before undertaking a transfer pricing benchmarking analysis.

The court clarified that AMP expenses do not automatically fall within the scope of transfer pricing regulations unless there is clear evidence of an arrangement between the assessee and the foreign AE. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ITAT’s decision, ruling in favor of the appellant.

No Exemption to Interest on Refund Under DTVSV Scheme: Gujarat HC M/S SAHIL TOTAL INFRATECH PVT. LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 340

The Gujarat High Court has held that the interest is payable on refund under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV Scheme) even in absence of the provision.

Without  considering whether it is a fault on part of the petitioner to validate the bank account or whether any negligence on part of the respondents for not releasing the amount of refund, the court directed the respondents to pay the amount of interest at the rate of 6% per annum as per the calculation provided to us amounting to Rs.22,04,104/- for twenty months from 01/06/2022 to 31/01/2024 considering the entire month on amount of Rs.2,20,41,042/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Delhi HC upholds Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated  against Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration) MADAN MOHAN vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 337

The Delhi High Court upheld the order initiating disciplinary proceedings against Madan Mohan, a Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration). The bench determined that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 was entirely lawful because it only included an internal work allocation exercise by the MOF under his Ministry.

The bench determined that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 was entirely lawful because it only included an internal work allocation exercise by the MOF under his Ministry.

Non-Mention of DIN Number: Andhra Pradesh HC quashes GST Assessment Order M/s. Arrow Advertising India Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissionerst and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 341

Due to the Director Identification Number (DIN) not being included, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has revoked the GST assessment ruling.

The court disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the show-cause notice, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

Time Limit for Issuance of SCN & Order under GST Act Extended by CBIC Notification: Bombay HC stays Garnishee Notice NTT Data Business Solutions Pvt Ltd vsUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 342

Citing CBIC Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, which extended the deadline for issuing show cause notices (SCNs) and orders, the Bombay High Court granted an interim stay on the garnishee notice.

The division bench, which is made up of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the Petitioner has not only made out a case for admission but also for grant of interim relief.The court held that a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner.

Madras HC Confirms Online Filing Date as GST Appeal Submission Date Mr.Palaniyand Sharavanan vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 343

The Madras High Court has ruled that the online filing date should be considered the official submission date for GST appeals.

The Single Bench, comprised of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, examined Rule 108(2) of the GST Rules and held that once a provisional acknowledgment is issued, the appeal filing date should relate to that acknowledgment. Since the petitioner had uploaded the appeal on 23.08.2024, and it was acknowledged on the same date, the Court ruled that this must be considered the valid filing date. As a result, the appeal was within the permissible limitation period under Section 107(7) of the GST Act.

No PE in India, Offshore Supply of Telecom Commodities Contracts Not Taxable : Delhi HC Rules in Nokia’s Tax Matter THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NOKIA NETWORK OY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 345

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling has held that Nokia Network OY (now Nokia Corporation) does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, thereby exempting its offshore supply transactions from taxation under Indian law.

The High Court bench consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that Offshore supply transactions remain non-taxable if executed outside India. Held that A subsidiary does not automatically become a PE, even if it is wholly owned, that notional interest on delayed payments cannot be taxed unless actually received. The Court also asserted that Bundled software sales do not qualify as royalty payments.

Tax Demand Contradicts going Concern Exemption: Madras HC Orders Re-Assessment Frontline Wind Energy Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 344

The Madras High Court observed that the GST demand on a going concern transfer was arbitrary and unsustainable as it contradicted the tax department’s earlier notice.

The court found the demand to be arbitrary and unsustainable. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order based on the merits and under the law.

Absence of AO’s Signature and DIN Number on Form GST DRC-07 Assessment Order: Andhra Pradesh HC Sets Aside Order M/s. Teju Granites vs The Assistant Commissioner State Taxes Markapur Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 346

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the recent ruling, set aside Form GST DRC-07 assessment order due to absence of Assessing Officer (AO)’s signature and Document Identification Number(DIN).

The two member bench comprising R Raghunandan Rao(Justice) and Dr. K.Manmadha Rao(Justice) set aside the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.06.2022, and allowed the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with notice and a signature on the order. The time between the impugned order and this decision was excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.

No General Penalty u/s 125 if Specific Penalty for Late Filing of GST Returns u/s 47 is Levied: Madras HC Tvl.Jainsons Castors & Industrial Products vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 347

The Madras High Court recently delivered a highly significant judgment clarifying that there can be no simultaneous applicability of late fees for belated filing of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) returns under section 47 and general penalties under section 125 under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( TNGST ) Act, 2017.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the general penalty of ₹50,000 inclusive of ₹25,000 CGST and  ₹25,000 SGST while upholding the applicability of late fee imposed under Section 47.

Madras HC Stays ED Attachment of Director S. Shankar’s ₹10 Crore Property in ‘Enthiran’ PMLA-Copyright Infringement Case

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (11 March, 2025) stayed a prior order passed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally attaching assets worth ₹10.11 crore belonging to revered Tamil film director S. Shankar.

The Madras High Court found merit in the plea raised by S. Shankar, and ordered a stay on the attachment of the property while directing the agency to file its counter arguments by April 21, 2025.

Power to Remand u/s 107(11) of GST Act: Telangana HC allows Petition on Non-Consideration of Jurisdiction Objection M/s. Sreenidhi lnternational Pvt. Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 348

The Telangana High Court allowed writ petition citing violation of natural justice principle. It was found that there was  breach of principles of natural justice and for not considering the objection of jurisdiction.

A division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Dr. Justice G.Radha Rani viewed that “If activity is ‘exempted’, the question of imposition of tax does not arise. Sadly, this relevant aspect/ objection has escaped notice of the authority, who has passed the impugned order. . The said objection certainly goes to the root of the matter and relates to the competence of authority in subjecting the petitioner to impugned proceedings. Thus, for twin reasons namely for breach of principles of natural justice and for not considering the objection of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy.”

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax has Authority to Cancel Registration of Assessee even without Decision from Assessing Authority: Kerala HC THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs LAST HOUR MINISTRY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 349

The Kerala High Court declared the principal commissioner’s power to terminate an assessee’s registration without awaiting the assessing authority’s action.  Judges A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S., who made up the Division Bench, noted that Section 12AA’s provisions give the Principal Commissioner the authority to decide whether the conditions listed in Sections 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act are necessary to order the cancellation of the registration that was given to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench held that the Principal Commissioner is not required by the legislative provisions to wait for the Assessing Authority’s conclusion before issuing an order terminating an assessee’s registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The bench overturned the Appellate Tribunal’s ruling and granted the appeal.

SCN u/s 29 CGST Act must reflect Reasons and Intent of Retrospective Cancellation of Registration: Delhi HC JSD TRADERS LLP vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 350

The Delhi High Court has been made clear that a decision to cancel a trader’s GST registration with retroactive effect will not be upheld unless the authority’s intentions and the reasons for the cancellation are reflected in the show cause notice.

As a result, the Department was given permission to continue against the Petitioner only after being fully informed of the facts supporting that opinion in accordance with Section 29(2)(e)

Bombay HC Directs RBI to Accept ₹20 Lakh Demonetized Currency due to Seizure by Income Tax Department Prior to Bank Deposit Deadline Ramesh Bapurao Potdar vs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 351

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to accept and exchange ₹20 lakh in demonetized currency notes held by a Kolhapur resident since their cash was seized by the Income Tax Department prior to the December 30, 2016 deadline for bank deposit of the now-demonetized ₹500 and ₹1000 currency notes.

The RBI was directed to verify the notes and release an equivalent amount in legal tender to petitioner no.1 on behalf of all petitioners. Additionally, petitioner no.1 was directed to indemnify the RBI against any future claims from the other petitioners, and this process was required to be completed within seven days of receiving the specified bank notes.

GST: Timeline for Issuing SCN u/s 73(2) is Mandatory, says Andhra Pradesh HC M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 352

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the time limit specified in AP GST Act 73(2) for the issuance of a show-cause notice about a purportedly inadequate tax payment, etc., is obligatory.

The High Court noted that if a time frame for a certain activity is expressed in terms of months, the cutoff date would be the corresponding date of that month. The Court determined that since the deadline for issuing an injunction was 28.02.2024, the three months that would pass after this date would be 28.11.2024. Given that the notice was sent on November 30, 2024, it would have passed the deadline set forth in Section 73(2) of the GST Act. The court quashed the SCN and allowed the petition.

Delay in Finalizing Gold Jewellery Import Assessment: Delhi HC Directs Release of Bank Guarantee with Interest M/S OM GEMS AND JEWELLERY vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) AIR CARGO COMPLEX NSCBI AIRPORT & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 354

The High Court of Delhi directed the release of the Bank Guarantee with interest due to an unjustified delay in finalizing the provisional assessment of imported gold jewellery.

The Court noted a serious lapse in the reply affidavit from the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, as it failed to consider the December 14, 2023, judgment and warned against such errors. It further stated that if the Bank Guarantee with interest was not released, the responsible officer would be held personally accountable, and the assessee could file an application before the Court.

Deduction of Bad Debts u/s 36 Income Tax Act only if Lends in Ordinary Course of Banking/ Money Lending Business: Delhi HC PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 355

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if the assessee represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.

The court struck aside an ITAT ruling permitting the Respondent-assessee, a financial services business, to claim over ₹27 crore as bad debt of a borrower, which was a group company of the Assessee.

Allahabad HC quashes GST Demands on Merged Max Ventures, Rules Proceedings against Non-Existent Entities Invalid Max Estates Limited vs Union of India and another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 357

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the GST demands issued against Max Ventures and Industries Limited after its merger with Max Estates Limited, ruling that tax demands made against a company that had ceased to exist due to merger are invalid.

The court allowed the government to pursue tax proceedings against the appropriate entity, Max Estates Limited, if permissible under the law.

Claim of Refund of Excessive TDS collected under CGST Act: Telangana HC directs L&T to File Appeal before Adjudicating Authority L & T PES JV vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 356

The Telangana High Court held that in the absence of the aforesaid material, information and documents to substantiate the claim of refund of excessive Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) collected under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, it would be difficult for the Bench in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to grant any relief to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant material and on such submission, the adjudicating authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for refund of TDS amount in the event of petitioner furnishing appropriate, cogent documents in proof of discharge of liability in the State of Maharashtra after duly affording opportunity to both the parties.

Mismatch between Figures and Words of Cheque Amount Would Not Invalidate Cheque; Merits Trial: Delhi HC NITESH YADAV vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 358

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court highlighted a specific instance wherein a mismatch between the figures and words in a cheque does not automatically invalidate it, holding that such disputes must be resolved through a trial.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled that technical defects should not defeat the object of the NI Act, which is to uphold the credibility of negotiable instruments. It held that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was maintainable and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini District Court, to proceed with the trial.

Centre’s Exceptional & Discretionary Power to Relax Conditions Rule 9C of Income Tax Rules, not subject to Judicial Review: Delhi HC CARGILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 359

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central government’s authority to relax restrictions outlined in Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 and Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962 is extraordinary, discretionary, and not normally subject to judicial review.

As a result, the Court denied the petition, stating that even after accounting for the longer time frame for meeting the requirement, the Petitioner had failed to meet the specified condition, which was to achieve production equal to at least 50% of the installed capacity of the amalgamating company’s undertaking.

Disagreement With Dept Regarding Classification of Goods for Customs Duty Levying Not Amount to ‘Suppression of Facts’: Delhi HC M/S ISMARTU INDIA PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 360

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter’s goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in ‘suppression of facts’ from the Department.

While allowing the appeal, the Court also cautioned the Department against mere incantation of the provisions of the Section without any substance to back it up and quashed the impugned SCN.

S. 28(4) and S. 28(1) under Customs Act Operates separately: Delhi HC M/S ISMARTU INDIA PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 360

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued. Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices.

It was noted that notices under both provisions cannot be issued in cases where (i) the factual matrix is nearly identical, (ii) the reports are submitted by the same chartered engineer, and (iii) the conclusions are nearly identical. This is because Section 28(1) can only function in the absence of the conditions outlined in Section 28(4).

Madras HC directs Disposal of Pending Appeal for AY 2019-20 within Four Months Amid Recovery Proceedings M/s.Ashoka Textiles vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 361

The Madras High Court, directed the disposal of a pending appeal for Assessment Year(AY) 2019-20 within four months amid recovery proceedings.

A single member bench comprising Vivek Kumar Singh (Justice) instructed the third respondent to review the petitioner’s appeal dated May 22, 2024, on its merits and issue appropriate orders as per the law within four months of receiving a copy of the order, after granting the petitioner a fair opportunity. It also clarified that it had not given any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the decision to the third respondent. In conclusion, the writ petition  was disposed of.

Settlement Application Validity Under Clause [iv] of S.245A: Madras HC Confirms Deemed Pendency Before March 31, 2021 The Central Board of Direct Taxes vs Shri Anbuchezhian CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 362

The High Court of Madras confirmed the deemed pendency of a settlement application under Clause [iv] of Section 245A of Income Tax Act, 1961, before March 31, 2021.

Further, it was acknowledged that the Division Bench’s decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court on July 9, 2024, in SLP [C] Diary No.21948/2024. The order of the Single Judge was subsequently complied with, albeit without prejudice to the assessee’s stand. The two member bench comprising S.S.Sundar (Justice) and C.Saravanan (Justice) dismissed the writ appeal.

Customs cannot Deny IGST Refund to Exporter even if Higher Rate of Duty Drawback was Availed: Madras HC The Assistant Commissioner of Customs vs M/s.Modern India Products CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 363

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, has held that the Customs Department cannot deny refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) to exporters merely on the grounds that they had availed a higher rate of duty drawback.

Dismissing the appeal by the Customs, the Madras High Court upheld the ruling of the preceding single-bench in favour of M/s.Modern India Products.

Homebuyers Win: Allahabad HC Rules 8-Year Stamp Duty Refund Limit Can’t Apply Retrospectively SEEMA PADALIA AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 364

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the denial of a stamp duty refund, ruling that the 8-year limitation period introduced by the U.P. Stamp (5th Amendment) Rules, 2021, applies prospectively and cannot defeat accrued rights.

The court ruled that the refund application must be reconsidered in light of these judgments and directed the concerned authorities to review and process the petitioners’ refund claim within three months. The writ petition was allowed.

12% GST Applicable on Fruit Pulp & Juice-Based Carbonated Drinks, not 40%: Gauhati HC X\'SS BEVERAGE CO. vs The State of Assam CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 365

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court ruled that fruit pulp and juice-based carbonated drinks should be taxed at 12% GST instead of the 40% tax rate imposed by the state tax authorities.

Clear all Your Doubts on RCM, TCS, GTA, OIDAR, SEZ, ISD Etc... Click Here

The court held that the interest and penalty imposed under Section 74 were unsustainable, as the department had failed to establish any intent to evade taxes. The writ petition was allowed.

Madras HC orders CBCID Probe into Fake Law Firm Run by Non-Lawyer Kamalesh Chandrasekaran vs M.A.Noor Jehan Beevi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 366

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed the Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) to investigate a fake law firm allegedly operated by a non-lawyer under the guise of a legal practice.

The court ordered the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Preethi Baskar for professional misconduct. The police were instructed to take necessary action against any individuals found to be unlawfully practicing law. The case has now been referred for further investigation, and authorities have been directed to submit a status report on the matter.

Wrong Branch GSTN on Invoice: Delhi HC overturns ₹5.65 Crore GST ITC Rejection M/S B BRAUN MEDICAL INDIA PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 368

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed a Rs. 5.65 crore GST ITC demand ruling that mere mention of the wrong branch GSTN does not justify denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the transaction is genuine and no fraudulent claim has been made.

The court set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to avail of ITC for the relevant financial years. The writ petition was partly allowed, with the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act being withdrawn after the relief was granted.

Madras HC quashes Reassessment Notice Over Change of Opinion, Not New Material VIP Housing and Properties vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 367

The High Court of Madras quashed the reassessment notice over a change of opinion, ruling that the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year(AY)2014-15 was not supported by new material.

For AY 2014-15, the court found that the AO was already aware of the search and seizures. Since the reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than new material, the court quashed the reassessment notice dated March 31, 2021, and the order dated February 11, 2022. In short,the writ petition was allowed.

Retracted Statement not Incriminating Material u/s 153A: Gauhati HC quashes ₹4.23 Cr Addition THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs ROHIT KARAN JAIN CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 369

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court held that a retracted statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating evidence under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act and quashed the Rs. 4.23 crore addition made to the assessee’s income.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case. The court reaffirmed that completed assessments cannot be reopened under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act unless fresh incriminating material is found during a search operation. The court upheld the ITAT’s ruling, confirming that the addition of Rs. 4.23 crore was unsustainable in law.

GST Notices uploaded in Wrong Tab on Portal: Allahabad HC quashes Tax Demand M/S Ram Balak Gupta vs State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 370

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand after finding that the department had uploaded notices and orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the “Due Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal.

The court further directed that all future proceedings be conducted only after ensuring proper notice delivery. The writ petition was allowed.

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