Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [April 12th to April 18th,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 12th April 2025 to 18th April 2025)

Applicability of S.223 BNSS to PMLA Cases that Started Investigation Before July 1, 2024: Supreme Court Schedules Hearing on May 9

KUSHAL KUMAR AGARWAL vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 156

In case of applicability of section 223 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) for PMLA cases that started investigation before July 1 , 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice returnable on 9 May 2025 and stayed further proceedings in the complaint.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice returnable on 9 May 2025 and stayed further proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner until further orders.

Supreme Court  Directs Courts & SRO to report Suits / Deeds of Cash Transaction Above ₹2 Lakh to Income Tax Authorities

The Correspondence vs B. Gunashekar & Another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 156

The Supreme Court ordered courts and registration authorities to notify the Income Tax Department of any cash transactions above ₹2 lakhs, in a landmark decision intended to combat tax fraud and black money.

The Court granted the appeal, dismissing the lawsuit on the grounds that it would be a waste of judicial time to rule on a case that was riddled with flaws, false accusations, and speculative litigation.

Allegation of Illegal Gratification u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act with uncorroborated Evidence is not Conclusive: Karnataka HC

YOGESH vs STATE OF DELHI CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 486

The Karnataka High Court held that the allegation of illegal gratification under section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with uncorroborated evidence is not conclusive.

The bench set aside the conviction order, and the bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.

Challenge against Motor Vehicle Tax Arrears Uploaded in Web Portal of Transport Dept: Orissa HC Directs to Deposit Outstanding MV Tax

Subrat Kumar Behera vs State of Odisha & Anr CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 494

In The High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack Subrat Kumar Behera , the Petitioner has challenged the levy of Motor Vehicle Tax and additional Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09-G-1268(Tipper) for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 which is claimed to be arrears, as has been uploaded in the Webportal of the Transport Department without calling for any reply/explanation.

It was also observed that payment of outstanding Motor Vehicle Tax as well as additional Motor Vehicle Tax shall be accepted by the Opposite Parties and the application to be filed by the Petitioner for issuance of permit and fitness certificate in respect of the above noted vehicle shall be considered in accordance with law.

Challenge against Order passed u/s 74 of CGST Act: Kerala HC Directs to appeal before GSTAT Considering Brink of Constitution

M/S GOLD KING FASHION JEWELLERY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 496

 In a recent petition, which is against an order passed under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST), 2017 , the Kerala High Court directed the petitioner to approach the second appellate authority, ie, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority (GSTAT), considering the brink of constitution.

It was further held that “If the said amount has not already been paid, petitioner is given 30 days time from today to pay the said amount. If the said amount has already been paid, credit shall be given to that. All coercive proceedings for recovery pursuant to the order shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal as directed above is disposed of, provided the amount as contemplated under Section 112(8)(b) of the Act is paid.”

Calcutta HC Rejects GST Revocation Plea Due to the Non-Existence of Business

ED & F Man Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax & Ors. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 492

In a recent judgement, Calcutta High Court upheld the cancellation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner because of the non-existence of business.

The bench observed that the verification report, submitted per the court’s direction, confirmed that the premises were non-operational. The petitioner’s photographic evidence was aslo termed to be unconvincing. Thus, the Court upheld the cancellation of registration and dismissed the writ petition.

No VAT Leviable on Value of Land Under Works Contract as per KVAT: Karnataka HC

M/S FORTIOUS INFRADEVELOPERS LLP vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ZONE)-1 CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 493

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the value of land under a works contract under Composition Scheme Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT), 2005 is not subject to VAT.

While allowing the appeal, the bench held that “different contracts are signed for the sale of an undivided portion of land and a works contract.” Because they constitute the entire consideration for the works contract, the Act contemplates that the previous agreement for the sale of property would not be a subject matter of the tax and that only the total arrangement of works contracts would be considered.

Calcutta HC upholds Transfer Order Passed u/s 127 of Income Tax Act 8 years Ago

ANJANI GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 495

The Calcutta High Court upheld the transfer order passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was passed 8 years ago. The bench held that the jurisdiction be retained within Kolkata on account of the long lapse of time and the specific written instruction given by the department.

In the light of the above reasoning given by the Single Bench, the current division bench held that the jurisdiction be retained within Kolkata on account of the long lapse of time and the specific written instruction given by the department.

Confiscation of ‘Gold Kada’ Without Proper Notice: Delhi HC quashes Order Due to Invalid Waiver

SAI KIRAN GOUD TIRUPATHI vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 501

The Delhi High Court quashed an order of absolute confiscation of a gold Kada seized at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, due to the use of an invalid standard waiver and lack of proper notice.

Since a similar standard waiver was used in this case, the Court held that the order could not be sustained and quashed it. The bench directed the Customs Department to release the gold Kada after verifying the petitioner’s identity and on payment of storage charges within four weeks. In short,the petition was disposed of.

Wrongful Claim of ITC in IGST Instead of CGST: Calcutta HC Stays GST Demand considering Revenue Neutral

WILHELMSEN PORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 499

The Calcutta High Court stayed the Goods and Service Tax demand against the wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Interstate Goods and Service Tax (IGST) instead of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST).The bench stayed the demand considering the revenue neutrality.

A division bench of  Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) found that there is no revenue loss to the Government and it is revenue neutral. Considering the situation, the court viewed that the orders impugned in the writ petition shall remain stayed till the disposal of the writ petition and the petitioners are exempt from making the payment of 10% of the tax in dispute as ordered by the  writ court.

Relief to Pfizer: Bombay HC Quashes Reopening of Assessment on Promotional Expenses, Terms It Change of Opinion

Pfizer Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 506

The High Court of Bombay quashed the reopening of assessment initiated under Section 148 of Income Tax Act,1961 against Pfizer Limited for Assessment Year 2009–10, holding that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion.

The Court held that reopening the case on the same issue amounted to a change of opinion, which is not allowed. It also noted that the issue had already been decided by the CIT(A) before the reassessment notice was issued, so reassessment was not valid. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Abbot India Ltd. vs. ACIT, where reassessment was quashed in similar circumstances. It quashed the notice dated 29 March 2016 and allowed the petition.

Kerala HC Rejects Challenge to GST Penalty u/s 74 CGST Act Due to Delay and Lack of Jurisdictional Error

M/S TABASCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 497

The High Court of Kerala, dismissed a writ petition challenging a Goods and Service Tax (GST) penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax(CGST) Act, citing delay and absence of any jurisdictional error.

A single member bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas(Judge) also observed that the petitioner had accepted the order by paying the tax and chose not to file an appeal within the time allowed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. So, there was no reason to interfere under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed.

Partial Relief to Maggie: Delhi HC Rules Delay Not Prejudicial, Remands Matter to CESTAT for Merits Review

MAGGIE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 504

The Delhi High Court, while holding that the delay between 2017 and 2021 in adjudicating the Show Cause Notice did not cause any serious prejudice, granted partial relief by setting aside the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) order and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing on merits.

The assessee was allowed to file a reply on merits within one month, and the matter was listed before CESTAT on 5th May 2025. In short the writ petition was disposed of.

Delhi HC Quashes Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act for Improper Service on Foreign Entity

ST ENGINEERING AEROSPACE ENGINES PTE LTD VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 500

The High Court of Delhi, quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the petitioner, a Singapore-based entity, due to improper service.

The court decided to send the matter back to the stage of considering the notice under section 148A(b). It quashed the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148, allowing the petitioner three weeks to file a response. The AO would proceed with the case according to the law after receiving the response. In short,the writ petition was disposed of.

Allahabad HC quashes Ex-Parte GST Order Due to Improper Service of Hearing Notice

M/S Capital Graphics vs State Of U.P. Thru CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 507

The Allahabad High Court,quashed the ex-parte Goods and Service Tax(GST) order dated citing improper service of the hearing notice .

Justice Pankaj Bhatia relying on Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd., quashed the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 and allowed the writ petition, giving liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order after granting the petitioner a hearing.

Relief to MakeMyTrip: Delhi HC quashes Reassessment Notice for AY 2015–16 as time-barred, citing TOLA inapplicability

MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 (1) DELHI & ANR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 503

The Delhi High Court, granting relief to MakeMyTrip, quashed a reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year(AY) 2015–16, holding it time-barred as the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA) did not apply to that year.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that since the notice dated 27.07.2022 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and the relaxation under TOLA was not applicable, the notice and all related proceedings were set aside. In short,the petition was allowed.

Delhi HC Quashes Customs Order Over 10-Year Delay and Procedural Lapse

GURJIT SINGH BAINS VS ADDL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 505

The Delhi High Court, quashed a Customs order issued nearly a decade after the show cause notice, holding that the 10-year delay in adjudication and failure to provide proper opportunity of hearing rendered the proceedings unsustainable.

The court referred to its earlier rulings in Vos Technologies and Vijay Enterprises, where it had held that long delays in adjudication, especially due to repeated placement in the call book, were not justified. In this case, the show cause notice was issued in December 2014, and the Order-in-Original was passed only in March 2024,almost ten years later. The bench held that such delay was not acceptable, set aside the Order-in-Original, and quashed the proceedings.

Alleged ₹33 Crore GST Invoice Scam: Patna HC Grants Bail to Accused due to Lack of Proper Evidence

Prem Sundar Chaudhary vs Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 510

The Patna High Court has released on bail a person accused in a purported ₹33 crore bogus GST invoice and e-way bill generation scam on grounds of lack of proper evidentiary support. The authorities failed to produce sufficient evidence with regards to the alleged fake firms and e-way bills.

The Union of India argued that the accused amounted to a loss of revenue exceeding ₹33 crore. The Court, however, observed that maximum punishment under Section 132 of the CGST Act is five years.

Kerala HC sets aside SCN imposing Penalty u/s 117 of Customs Act without stating any Reason

M/S MBK LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 509

The Kerala High Court sets aside the show cause notice imposing penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 which was made without stating any reason for the imposition of penalty.

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar  &  Justice Easwaran S. held that the order of the tribunal Customs Appeal sustaining the penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act cannot be sustained and allowed the appeal by set aside the order challenged.

Service Tax on Railway License Fees Treated as Support Services: Patna HC Declines Interference Citing Alternate Remedy

M/S Singh Caterers and Vendors a Partnership firm vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Govt. of India) Dept. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 502

The High Court of Patna, declined to interfere with a service tax demand, treating Railway license fees as “support services” under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) and citing the availability of an appellate remedy.

The bench refused to interfere under its writ jurisdiction but allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within eight weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay, as the writ had been pending since February 14, 2023.

Patna HC Holds Income Tax Reassessment Notice Valid as Initial Notice Falls Within Limitation Period

Chandra Shekhar vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 508

The Patna High Court reassessment notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was valid, as the initial notice dated 28.03.2024 fell within the three-year limitation period under Section 149(1)(a) for AY 2020–21.

It concluded that, based on the law and the facts, the notice dated 28.03.2024 was valid and the AO had the jurisdiction to proceed. The bench found the writ petition premature and disposed of it, allowing the petitioner to participate in the ongoing proceedings and cooperate with the department.

Cancellation of GST Registration without Giving Opportunity to Respond: Calcutta HC Directs to apply for Revocation u/s 30 of CGST Act

Ranjeet Kumar Poddar vs Superintendent, Range-I CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 498

The Calcutta High Court directed to apply for revocation under section 30 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 against the cancellation of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) made without giving an opportunity to respond to the same.

Further held that “ If such application is filed within a period of two weeks from date, the authorities shall, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case hear out and dispose of such application on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of such application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order.”

Lottery Tickets Sale not fall under ‘Auxiliary Service’, Service Tax Not Payable: Kerala HC

C.N.MITHRAN vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 511

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has held that service tax is not payable on the sale of lottery tickets, as it does not fall under the purview of auxiliary service or taxable service as defined under section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.

While allowing the petition, the court found that since the sale process is not under the definition of taxable service as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax demandable is not valid within the meaning of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994

Goods Exempted from Customs Duty May be Subject to Levy of Additional Duty: Madras HC

Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd vs Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 512

The Madras High Court in its recent ruling concluded that imported products that are exempt from basic customs tax may be subject to additional duty levied in accordance with applicable laws.

While dismisisng the petition, the bench held that the Customs Tariff Act of 1975 stipulates that products imported into or exported from India must pay customs charges at the rates prescribed by the Customs Act. Consequently, the Customs Tariff Act establishes the rate at which customs charges will be assessed.

Relief to Castrol India Ltd, Withholding Tax Refunds beyond Prescribed Period without Any Justification Violates S. 55 of JVAT Act: Jharkhand HC

M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 513

 In a ruling in favour of Catrol India Ltd, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that when tax refunds are withheld past the legally mandated time frame without sufficient explanation, Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, is violated and the taxpayer is deprived of their dues.

While allowing the petition, the Court ordered that the interest be paid within eight weeks of receipt of the order, failing which a cost of ₹1,00,000 would also be imposed.

College Supplying Food through Canteen run by Educational Trust Must Register under KVAT Act: Kerala HC

M/S. ANNOOR DENTAL COLLEGE PERUMATTOM vs STATE OF KERALA CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 514

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has held that a college supplying food through canteen, though managed by an educational trust, is liable for registration under Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( KVAT ) Act, 2003.

While dismissing the revision petition, the court held that the liability to pay tax would definitely depend upon the verification ordered to be conducted by the tribunal.

Rs.1.5 crores Illegal Gratification by GST Intelligence Officer: Kerala HC quashes Proceedings under PC Act in Absence of Evidence

V. JAYANANDAKUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 515

In a recent case on huge amount of Illegal Gratification, the Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC) ,1988 as there was no evidence to establish the knowledge of accused that his car was availed for the purpose of carrying Rs.1.5 crores to the Goods and Service Tax (GST) intelligence officer for lower the tax rate that the company owed to pay.

In the statement filed by the investigating officer also, no such evidence has been pointed out. Therefore, prosecution of accused No.8 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 120 B of the IPC cannot be justified. Such an exercise will end only in futility. The court dismissed one petition and allowed the other by quashing further proceedings in C.C. No.7 of 2022 as against accused No.8.

Time to Deposit Balance E-Auction Bid Amount Can Be Extended Under Article 226 in Exceptional Cases: Kerala HC

FLORICAN PRIME LAND LLP vs THE RECOVERY OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 517

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that the time for remitting the balance bid amount in an e-auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can be extended by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in exceptional and appropriate cases.

Since the successful bidder had paid the full amount within the court-extended timeline, the court held that no further relief was necessary in that writ petition. The writ petition filed by Asteria Avenues LLP and Rekha Jain was dismissed.

GST: Kerala HC rules Detention for Undeclared Goods u/s 129 Valid, Orders Release on Penalty Payment

SOBHA ENTERPRISES vs ASST. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT SQUAD CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 518

In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court held that detention of goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act is valid when goods transported are found in excess of those covered by the invoice and e-way bill. The Court directed that such goods and the vehicle be released upon payment of the applicable tax and penalty, as per the law.

The court ruled that no further judicial directions were necessary beyond clarifying that physical verification should be completed on the day the petitioner appears before the respondent. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Interest Received on Delayed Compulsory Agricultural Land Acquisition Compensation be Classified as ‘Capital Gain’: Kerala HC

SHRI. ANVAR ALI POOLAKKODAN vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 516

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the interest received on delayed compensation for compulsory agricultural land acquisition will be treated as Capital Gain as it is an accrual to the principal compensation amount. Thus, the court thereby rejected the possibility of treatment of interest on compensation as Income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Court also pointed out that the definition of “interest” under Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act does not encompass interest paid as compensation under the LAA. Since the interest in these cases does not fall within the purview of Section 2(28A), Section 56 is not attracted. In its conclusion, the bench observed that “The applicability of Section 56 (2)(viii) will depend upon whether or not, in the particular factual situation, the interest amount can be  treated as different in nature from the principal compensation amount.” Accordingly, the judgment was ruled in favour of the assessee

GST Authorities Must Draw Samples Before Concluding Goods Misrepresented: Allahabad HC Quashes Detention Order

M/S Shivaji Udhyog vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 Appeal-Ii And Another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 520

The GST (Goods and Services Tax) authorities must draw samples before concluding the goods were misrepresented, ruled the Allahabad High Court quashing the detention order. The court noted that the authorities failed to prove the intention to evade tax in order to apply Section 129(3) of the Central GST Act, 2017.

The court obsrevd that “For invoking the proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act, there must be an intention to evade payment of tax, which is a mandatory requirement, but while issuing notice or passing the orders of detention, seizure or demand of penalty and tax, no such intention of the petitioner was recorded and therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are vitiated.”

Seller Registered at Time of Transaction Cannot Draw Adverse Inference Against Purchasing Dealer Over Subsequent GST Cancellation: Allahabad HC

M/S Solvi Enterprises vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 519

The Allahabad High Court has held that if the seller is a registered dealer at the time of the transaction, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchasing dealer based on the subsequent cancellation of the seller’s registration.

In M/S Rama Brick Field, the court overturned the proceedings, concluding that the results were accessible on the portal, notwithstanding the authorities’ failure to confirm this. In the current case, the Court expressed similar views. The matter was remanded to the authorities to issue new orders after the contested orders were overturned.

GST Interest & Penalty Not Applicable on Reversed ITC Never Availed or Utilised from Date of Claim of ITC in ECRL: Madras HC

M/s. Fairmacs Shipstores Private Limited VS The Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 521

The Madras High Court, in its recent ruling, favoured in favour of petitioner, ruling that the interest and penalty should not be imposed on the reversed input tax credit ( ITC ) under GST (Goods and Services Tax) that never availed or utilised from the date of claim of ITC in Electronic Credit Ledger (ECRL).

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramamsamy set aside the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed that the matter be re-examined on its merits and in accordance with the law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Await Outcome of Statutory Appeal Before Approaching Writ Court: Madras HC dismisses Writ Petition against Income Tax Proceedings

Senthilkumar vs The Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 523

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition against income tax proceeding directing the petitioner to wait for the outcome of the statutory appeal filed before approaching the high court.

The bench held no grounds to interfere at this juncture with the assessment and rejected the writ petition. The petitioner was instructed to proceed with the appeal proceedings before the first respondent in accordance with law. The Court also directed closure of all related miscellaneous petitions, without any order as to costs.

GST Assessment Order Against Deceased Person Unsustainable: Madras HC

Tvl.M.Thangaraj vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-II CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 522

The Madras High Court has ruled that the GST (Goods and Services Tax) assessment order issued under Section 74(9) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017 against the deceased person is unsustainable.

The Court clarified that all legal contentions were left open for the petitioner and other legal heirs to raise during any such future proceedings.

Delhi HC temporarily lifts Liquor Sale Ban at Hauz Khas Social by Excise Dept

EPIPHANY HOSPITALITY PVT LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER EXCISE CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 524

In a significant relief to Hauz Khas Social, the Delhi High Court held that liquor service at the establishment cannot be suspended as long as it holds a valid eating house registration. The Court also flagged the notice issued by the Excise Department as legally misconceived.

The licensing authority was also instructed to take into account paragraph 6(ii) of the Delhi Eating House Registration Regulations, 2023, as well as the outcome of the petitioner’s pending renewal application, while adjudicating the matter. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Reimbursement on GST Paid in SEZ: Orissa HC allows Disbursement of Sanction Order in favour of Vedanta Ltd

Vedanta Limited, SEZ vs Union of India and others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 525

In a recent case of Vedanta Ltd,  the Orissa High Court allowed the disbursement of a sanction order in the case of a reimbursement on Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ)

A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, the Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo viewed that the petitioner is in possession of a sanction order. Disposal of the representation can only deal with manner in which disbursement is to be made. Adjournment is granted for opposite parties to inform Court on petitioner’s claim for disbursement on the sanction.

Kerala HC quashes Demand of Late Fee payment u/s 234 E of Income Tax Act Citing Bereft of Jurisdiction

VANCHINAD FORGINGS (P) LTD. vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 528

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court quashed the demand of late fee payment under section 234 E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the demand in intimations for the period from 2012-13 is bereft of authority and cannot be legally sustainable.

In view of the above, the demand in intimations for the period from 2012-13 is bereft of authority and cannot be legally sustainable. The single bench quashed the intimations to the extent it demand late fee under section 234E for the period from 2012-13.

Delhi HC quashes CESTAT Ruling Invalidating DRI’s Jurisdiction to Issue Notices u/s 28 of Customs Act

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs ASHOK SINGHLA CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 526

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court quashed a ruling by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that had invalidated the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The High Court directed that Customs Appeal No. 52362 of 2016 be restored before CESTAT for hearing and be listed for further proceedings on 22 July 2025. It also ordered that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Registrar of CESTAT. The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

GST Appellate Authority Must Pass Order on Merits Even of Non Appearance: Kerala HC

ST. ANTONY TRADING AND TRANSPORT PVT. LIMITED vs JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 527

In a significant case, the Kerala High Court has ruled that, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017), an appellate authority must evaluate an appeal’s grounds even in cases when the appellant does not present. Observing that the impugned order was not issued on merits and without any points for determination, the Court set it aside after terming it “perverse”.

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default. Observing that the impugned order was not issued on merits and without any points for determination, the Court set it aside after terming it “perverse”. The authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after granting a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Delhi HC reduces Suspension Period Imposed by IBBI Disciplinary Committee on Insolvency Professional

SANDEEP KUMAR BHATT vs INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 529

The Delhi High Court reduced the Appellant/Resolution Professional’s suspension period, pointing out that the IBBI Disciplinary Committee used inaccurate data and failed to consider important factors when determining the penalty. The suspension was lowered to the previously completed time.

The Court drawn the conclusion that when assessing the sentence, the DC might have missed important details. It lowered the sentence to the time previously spent because the appellant had already been suspended for more than a year and four months.

No GST Liability under Entry 5B for Development Agreements Without TDR/FSI Transfer: Bombay HC

M/s Shrinivasa Realcon Private Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Anti Evasion Branch CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 530

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court held that GST is not leviable under Entry 5B of the GST Notification on development agreements that do not involve a transfer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI).

The court ruled that the transaction fell outside the scope of Entry 5B of the GST Notification. The show cause notice dated 14.08.2024 and the consequent order dated 10.12.2024 were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Supply or Land Transaction? Bombay HC Stays GST Demand on Development Rights in Revenue-Sharing Deals

Nirmal Lifestyle Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India & Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 531

In a recent proceeding, the Bombay High Court stayed the GST demand raised on the transfer of development rights under a revenue-sharing agreement.

A division bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the case raised arguable questions of law and facts and found a prima facie case for granting interim relief. The court stayed further proceedings related to the impugned GST demand and directed both parties to complete the exchange of affidavits in the coming weeks.

Filing of Certified Copy of Appealed Order in GST Appeal is Procedural in Nature, Not Mandatory: Allahabad HC

M/S Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 532

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the filing of certified copy in the GST (Goods and Services Tax) appeal is mere procedural in nature and not mandatory. The appeal cannot be dismissed on that particular reason.

Justice Piyush Agrawal concurred with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Chegg India Private Limited vs. Union of India & Others, holding that the requirement of physically filing a certified copy of the order appealed against is procedural in nature and not mandatory. The Court observed that where an appeal is filed along with all requisite documents and a copy of the impugned order, the submission of a certified copy is not necessary.

GST Order u/s 73 Passed Without Service of Notice: Allahabad HC directs to Treat Order as Notice and furnish documents

M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 533

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has directed the petitioner to treat the GST (Goods and Services Tax) order issued under Section 73 of the GST Act as notice as the department failed to service show cause notice before passing the impugned order.

The court accordingly directed that the assessment order dated 30.12.2023 shall be treated as a notice under Section 73 of the GST Act, thereby giving the petitioner an opportunity to file objections and place relevant documents within a period of eight weeks. The assessing authority has been mandated to consider the submissions and pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing within four weeks thereafter.

No GST on Affiliation, Migration or Sports Fees: Bombay HC quashes GST demand Order against Goa University

GOA UNIVERSITY vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 535

The Bombay High Court at Goa quashed the GST demand raised on various regulatory fees collected by Goa University, including affiliation charges, prospectus fees, migration certificate charges, and similar statutory levies. It was opined that the activities of the University not being commercial in nature, are not amenable to GST.

The petition was argued by Senior Advocate V. Raghuraman, along with a team of advocates including Mr. Gauravvardhan Nadkarni, Mr. Jay Mathew, Mr. B. Murthy, and Mr. Raghavendra C.R. The Court accepted their argument that the very foundation of the show cause notice was flawed due to the lack of jurisdictional facts supporting the levy of GST.

S. 93 GST Act Does Not Empower Authorities to Make Tax Determination against Dead Assessee: Allahabad HC

Amit Kumar Sethia vs State of U.P. and another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 534

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives.

According to Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017, the business owner is responsible for paying taxes upon their passing. Section 93(1)(a) states that any taxes, interest, or penalties due to the owner under the Act must be paid by the legal representative of a business that continues after the owner’s death. Accordingly, the court set aside the determination made against the dead person without issuing a notice to legal representatives.

GST on Services provided by Electricity Transmission or Distribution Utility: Allahabad HC stays Recovery Proceedings

M/s Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited vs Union of India and 4 others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 536

In a recent case, with regards to the GST on services provided by the electricity transmission or distribution utility, the Allahabad HC granted interim relief. The court stayed the recovery proceedings until the date of filing of the counter affidavit by the department.

A division bench of Justice  Kshitij Shailendra and Justice Arun Bhansali allowed time to the respondent authorities to file a counter affidavit, granting them four weeks to do the needful. Meanwhile, the Court ordered a stay on the recovery pursuant to the order dated January 2, 2025 and the order-in-original dated December 4, 2024.

Confession of Co-Accused shall be Considered in Economic Offences: Allahabad HC rejects Bail to GST Fraud Accused

Kunal Mehta Alias Goldee vs State of U.P CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 537

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to an accused in the GST (Goods and Services Tax) fraud. The court noted the apex court ruling that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into account while deciding bail applications in economic offences.

With regards to citing the Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the bench observed that merely citing the period of detention was insufficient ground for bail, particularly when the offence in question posed a serious threat to the economic interests of the nation. It observed that such precedent is not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the Court dismissed both bail applications filed by Kunal Mehta alias Goldee.

IBF’s Fund Deployment in BARC Not for Profit: Delhi HC Upholds Tax Exemption

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 538

The Delhi High Court,upheld the tax exemption for the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), ruling that its fund deployment in Broadcast Audience Research Council(BARC) was not a profit-driven investment, but aligned with the organization’s charitable objectives and government policy.

The High Court held that the funds placed in BARC were not intended to earn income and did not amount to an investment under the law. It found that the deployment of funds was to meet statutory and regulatory obligations in line with the trust’s charitable goals. As there was no violation of Section 11(5) or 13(1)(d), the Court upheld the exemption granted under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.The appeal was dismissed.

Form ITNS-150 Constitutes Valid Assessment Order u/s 143(3), Any Rectification Attracts S. 154 Limitation Period: Delhi HC

M/S DHANSAMRIDHI FINANCE PVT LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 (1) DELHI CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 539

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that Form ITNS-150 is not merely a ministerial document but a valid assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any amendment to this form is subject to the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 154 of the Act.

Since the rectification proceedings were initiated after the statutory four-year period, the court held the order and the demand notice to be unsustainable in law. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the rectification order and the related demand notice.

Paintings Gifted by Well-Known Artists: Delhi HC Confirms Through Diwali Cards and Signed Letters, Deletes ₹34.67 Lakh Addition

ROHIT GANDHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 540

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court deleted a tax addition of Rs. 34,67,900, ruling that paintings in his possession were genuine gifts from renowned Indian artists, relying on Diwali cards and signed confirmation letters from the artists.

The court explained that tax additions must be based on tangible evidence and cannot rest on conjecture or speculation. The court observed that the personal relationship between the assessee and the artists, the specific dedications on the artworks, the card messages, and the consistent confirmations from the donors sufficiently established the genuineness of the gifts. The court set aside the findings of the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT and deleted the entire addition of Rs. 34,67,900. The appeal was allowed.

Only Downloading Part A of E-way bill and Non-filling of Part B would not absolve Liability under GST Act: Allahabad HC

M/S B M Computers vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 541

The Allahabad High Court ruled that failure to fill Part B of an e-way bill, even if Part A is duly generated, does not shield a transporter or consignor from penalty under the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Act.

It was clarified that judgments cited by the petitioner where relief was granted in similar situations pertained to the period before April 2018, when the GST system was still evolving. Since then, technical and procedural improvements have removed earlier difficulties in generating complete e-way bills.

GST Assessment Order Passed Beyond Statutory Three-Year Limit: Allahabad HC Quashes Order

M/S Anita Traders Lko. U.P. Thru. Proprietor vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. And Another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 542

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed a GST assessment order passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 73(10) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017.

The court explained that the retrospective application of the 24.04.2023 notification was limited to cases where the limitation had not already expired before 31.03.2023. The court ruled that the assessment order and the corresponding show cause notice were passed without legal authority and were liable to be quashed. The court allowed the writ petition and directed that all consequential actions, including the freezing of bank accounts, be reversed.

High Courts cannot Adjudicate Accountant’s Guilt in GST ITC Fraud under Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi HC

SUNIL GULATI vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 545

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the role of an accountant in a large-scale fraudulent Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) scam cannot be adjudicated under its writ jurisdiction, dismissing a petition filed by Sunil Gulati, an accountant penalized for his alleged involvement in GST violations. The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, directed the petitioner to pursue remedies through appellate channels under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Acknowledging that the impugned order is appealable, the court granted Gulati an additional 30 days to file an appeal, ensuring that such appeal, if made within the extended period, would not be rejected on grounds of limitation. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Voluntarily Disclosed Bona Fide Mistake by Taxpayer: Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited vs DCIT Circle-1(1) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 544

In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be imposed where the taxpayer voluntarily discloses a bona fide error in their return.

The court ruled that the imposition of a penalty in such a case was not under the law, and there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the assessee disclosed a bona fide mistake upfront.

Relief for Suzuki India: Delhi HC allows SAD Refunds Despite Filing Beyond One-Year Limitation

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ICD IMPORT) vs SUZUKI MOTORCYCLE INDIA PVT LTD CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 546

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd refunds of Special Additional Duty (SAD) despite the claims being filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under the amended notification.

The court held that procedural delay could not nullify a legitimate claim when the substantive conditions for a refund, like payment of VAT/sales tax on resale, had been fulfilled. The court dismissed the department’s appeals, upheld the refund orders passed by the CESTAT.

VAT Dealers Duty Bound to Reverse/Debit ITC u/s 13(6) After Business Discontinuation by Law: Allahabad HC

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs Janki Industries CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 547

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the dealers registered under Value Added Tax Act ( VAT Act), 2008 are duty bound to reverse or debit the input tax credit as prescribed under Section 13(6) of the VAT after the discontinuation of business by the operation of law.

The high court noted that the Tribunal, in allowing the dealer’s appeal without examining compliance with these provisions or addressing specific findings of the Assessing Authority and appellate authority, appears to have overstepped. Thus, the bench set aside the Commercial Tax Tribunal’s order.

Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Order u/s 73 of  on Availability of Statutory Remedy

M/s. Abhiram Marketing Services Limited vs Union Of India Through Secretary CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 548

In a recent case, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, on the availability of statutory remedy.      

In any case, the petitioner has not presented any grounds worth considering in the case, and they are always free to use the appeals process as stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2917. The petitioner is not in a situation where they have no recourse. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

In Absence of TRAN-1 Filing Evidence, Proceedings to Reverse ITC under VAT not Bad in Law: Allahabad HC

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs Janki Industries CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 547

The Allahabad High Court held that in the absence of evidence confirming the filing of the TRAN-1 form, the proceedings to reverse Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) regime are legally valid and not flawed.

While set asiding the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal,  the high court observed that “Further, the opposite party has not brought on record any evidence up to the Tribunal that they have filled TRANS – 1. Once TRANS – 1 form was not filled, the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority cannot be said to be bad in law. Once the business under the VAT Act was discontinued on 30.06.2017 by operation of law, it becomes the dealer’s duty to reverse/debit the ITC as per section 13 (6) of the VAT Act.”

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