Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [April 26th to May 2nd,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 26th April 2025 to 2nd May 2025)

Bail is the Rule in GST S. 132 Offence Cases Except in Extraordinary Situations: Supreme Court

VINEET JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 161

The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that bail should be the norm, not the exception, in cases involving offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. In a recent ruling, the apex court expressed concern over the denial of bail to an accused despite the non-heinous nature of the alleged offence and the documentary nature of evidence.

The bench emphasized that the evidence in the case was purely documentary, and the accused had no prior criminal antecedents. Noting the absence of any special factors that could justify prolonged custody, the Court concluded that continued detention was unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order and granted bail to the accused.

Supreme Court Upholds Demand Notice u/s 8 IBC on Corporate Debtor’s Key Managerial Personnel

VISA COKE LIMITED vs M/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 160

The Supreme Court upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor’s Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC.

Reference was drawn to the case of Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla, (2001), where, while dealing with the requirement of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court held that a notice issued upon the Director of the Company amounts to notice to the Company. The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the NCLT for fresh consideration on merits.

Copies of Test Reports Justifying Reclassification Products under Central Excise Tariff Act must be Disclosed to Manufacturer: Supreme Court

M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 159

The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer.

The court observed that a copy of the test report has to be furnished to the manufacturer. In such circumstances, extracting the gist of the test reports, that too in the show-cause notices, would clearly be in breach of Rule 56 (2) and Rule 56 (4) of the Central Excise Rules. Such a procedure is not contemplated under Rule 56.

Supreme Court Quahses Enforcement of Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included in IBC Resolution Plan

ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED vs ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 158

The Supreme Court quashed an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

As a result, the Supreme Court halted the execution proceedings that were still continuing before the Commercial Court in Bokaro and overturned the contested orders of the High Court and the Executing Court.

No Reply to GST Notices on Portal? Send RPAD Reminders: Madras HC to GST Authorities

M/s.Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited vs Commercial State Tax Officer CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 606

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court directed the GST authorities to send reminders through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) if taxpayers fail to respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal.

The court set aside the assessment orders in multiple petitions, including the one filed by Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited. The court directed the petitioners to deposit a percentage of the disputed tax amount as a condition for setting aside the orders. The court also directed the GST authorities to reassess the matters afresh after giving proper notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Karnataka HC to Decide GST Classification for Donuts and Bakery Products, Stays Demand

M/S HIMESH FOODS PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 608

The Karnataka High Court is set to decide an important case about how GST (Goods and Services Tax) should be charged on donuts, cakes, and other bakery products. The court granted interim relief to Mad Over Donuts.

The final decision could help clear up confusion about how GST should be applied to food items sold in different ways across India. This case and the related one being heard at the Bombay High Court (next hearing on April 28, 2025) could set an important example for how tax rules will be applied in the future for food and bakery businesses.

Patna HC grant Anticipatory bail to PMLA Accused Apprehending Arrest based on SC Order

Ganesh Prasad Singh vs The Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 607

The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), in line with supreme court order.

Accordingly, the bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma, granted the  anticipatory bail application according to the decision of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal judgment and directed the trial court to adhere strictly to the guidelines laid down in the said ruling.

Delhi HC Directs Taxpayer to Approach Customs Appellate Forum First for Delay and Procedural Lapse Claims, Dismisses Writ

SANDEEP SANDHA vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 609

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a customs adjudication order and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962 in the case involving claims of delay in adjudication and procedural lapse.

The Court granted the petitioner an extended period of 30 days to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

Delhi HC Denies Pre-Deposit Waiver u/s.17(6) of GST, Cites Lack of Discretionary Power

M/S IMPRESSIVE DATA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), CENTRAL TAX GST, DELHI CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 611

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Impressive Data Services Pvt. Ltd., which sought exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), citing financial hardship and pending government receivables.

The court noted that Rs. 20 lakhs already lay with the Department out of the Rs. 64 lakhs total demanded. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to approach the appellate authority for any appropriate relief.

Adjudication Without Considering Timely Reply is Unsustainable: Delhi HC Sets Aside Rs 10.86 Cr GST Demand

M/S PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT LTD vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 610

The Delhi High Court set aside an Order-in-Original raising a GST demand of Rs. 10.86 crores on the ground that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner’s timely and detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN).

The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits and all contentions were left open. The adjudicating authority has been directed to conclude the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed.

Delhi HC Slashes Bank Guarantee from 130% to 30% of Differential Duty for Release of Seized Self-Drilling Bars

ROCKTEK INFRA SERVICES PVT. LTD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 612

The Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to reduce the bank guarantee required for provisional release of seized goods from 130% to 30% of the differential duty in the matter challenging the harsh conditions imposed for release of imported self-drilling bars.

The court directed to release the seized goods within ten days of furnishing the modified bond and bank guarantee. The writ petition was disposed of.

SIM Insertion for Unlocking Mobile Phones to Unlock Region Settings is ‘Configuration’: Delhi HC Quashes CBIC Clarifications on Duty Drawback

M/S AIMS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 613

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that SIM Insertion to mobile phones to unlock the regional setting is ‘configuration’ not usage under the Duty drawback Rules and ordered the customs department to process the duty drawback. The court also quashed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs’ ( CBIC) clarification.

However, if the drawbacks are not released within the said period, the Customs Department shall be liable to pay interest on the eligible duty drawback amounts to the respective Petitioners, in accordance with law, from the date of expiry of the three-month period. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Allahabad HC Grants Bail to GST Fraud Accused Over Passing Fake ITC on Ground of Parity

Gourav Jain vs Union Of India And Another CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 614

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the accused in a major GST (Goods and Services Tax) fraud case involving the alleged passing of fake Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The court granted regular bail furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is further directed that the accused-applicant shall also abide by terms and conditions of the bail, which shall be imposed by the trial Court at the time of acceptance of his bail bonds and surety.

Reassessment Initiated Based on Incorrect Non-Filing of ITR Alert from Insight Portal: Patna HC Quashes Demand

Ankit Agarwal vs The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar and Jharkhand CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 615

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court quashed the income tax demand raised through reassessment proceedings which was completely based on incorrect information from the insight portal that the petitioner did not file the income tax return.

It viewed that “the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was based on incorrect information furnished in the notice under section 148(A) (b) which was not supported by any material, therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding by issuing section 148 notice on 06.04.2022 would stand vitiated.” Accordingly the income tax demand was quashed by the court.

Alleged Demand of ₹5 Lakh Bribe for Shipment Release: Bombay HC allows Bail for Customs Superintendent

Vineet Kumar Dhattarwal vs The Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 616

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court allowed the bail application of a Customs Superintendent who had been arrested in connection with an alleged demand for a ₹5 lakh bribe to release a shipment at JNPT Port (Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, now officially known as Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority or JNPA).

Therefore the Bombay High Court proceeded to allow the bail application, directing that the Applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount.

Delhi HC Directs Physical Appearance of GST Commissioner concerning over “Harrowing Experience” of Widow Seeking Refund

BHAVNA LUTHRA L/H OF SH. NARAIN DAs LUTHRA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 618

The Delhi High Court directed the physical appearance of the Assistant GST Commissioner concerning over the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the  Department.

The Department submitted that the essential documents supporting the factum of death of the Petitioner’s husband were not placed along with the application for the refund. Petitioner on the other hand contended that the death of her husband already stands proved vide the order of cancellation of GST registration of his firm. The Court asked the Assistant Commissioner concerned to physically appear before it on the next date, i.e. May 05.

Customs’ Decision cannot Sit Over Customs Appellate Order to Release Goods: Delhi HC

HARIS ASLAM vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 620

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot overrule an appellate body’s order compelling it to release an assessee’s goods on the sole pretext that it wishes to request a modification to the order.

The clarification was provided in a petition submitted by a UAE resident whose gold chain and ring were seized by the Department upon their arrival in India. Furthermore, the High Court ordered the Department to release the Petitioner’s jewelry in view of the Commissioner’s order, which hasn’t been stayed yet.

Misuse of Duty Drawback Scheme by Exporters: Delhi HC Allows to Avail Remedy Under Customs Act

RAJBIR SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 619

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court  allowed the petitioner to avail remedy under the customs Act, 1961and also pointed the issue of  misuse of duty drawback scheme by  Various exporters .

The Petitioner is also permitted to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.  The Court in this proceeding shall not have any bearing on the adjudication before the Appellate Authority and it shall adjudicate the same in accordance with law. At this point, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the statement made by the Petitioner before the DRI has been relied upon in the impugned OIO, but the same was extracted out of duress and coercion.

GST Dept‘s Claims become Invalid on approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT: Allahabad HC

M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited vs Union Of India And 4 Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (NCLT) 127

The Allahabad High Court has held that the claims of the Goods and Services Tax Department become invalid on approval of resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that it is a well-established principle that all other creditors are prohibited from bringing their claims after the NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan because doing so would cause the resolution process to be disrupted. As a result, the Court invalidated the contested order together with the demand notice that followed.

Escaped Assessment in Different Years Cannot Be Consolidated to Meet Threshold Limit u/s 149 of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

M/S L-1 IDENTITY SOLUTIONS OPERATING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 621

The Delhi High Court has held that to reach the ₹50 lakh threshold set forth in Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for starting a reassessment action after three years, an Assessing Officer is not permitted to include income that purportedly eluded assessment in several prior years.

The bench concluded that no single incident or occurrence had caused the revenue from more than one prior year to surpass ₹50 lakhs. According to the aforementioned, the Assessee is accused of undercharging its AE for the R&D services it provided; as a result, ₹27 lakhs in income must be corrected. Furthermore, it is claimed that the Assessee overpaid by ₹21 lakhs for specific managerial and group-related services. It is not possible to claim that any of these two changes was a part of a single event or occasion that occurred over more than one year ago. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned notices and all proceedings.

SARFAESI Act & RDB Act Prevail Over Section 24 of TNGST Act: Madras HC

Indian Bank vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 622

The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that due to the fact that Section 34 of the RDB Act is merely a general provision, Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favor of the Financial Institution when compared to Section 34 of the RDB Act.

JCIT has No Power to Issue Sanction for Reassessment u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

SUKHBIR S. DAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 623

The Delhi High Court ruled that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is not authorized to authorize the start of a reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1957.

According to the division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia, neither the CIT nor the CCIT gave their consent. The JCIT, not the CCIT or CIT, approved the notification issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is obvious that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was illegal because it violated Section 151(1) of the Act.

Reasons Ought to be Given for Rejection of Duty Drawback in Respect of Clean Energy Cess under Customs: Delhi HC Grants Relief to Assessee

VEDANTA LIMITED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS & ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 624

The Delhi High Court has recently held that an order rejecting the benefit of duty drawback of clean energy cess must spell out reasons for the same and the order cannot be a simply cryptic one.

Thus, the Court stated that CBIC, drawback division, ought to have looked into the matter to pass a reasoned order on the representations of the Petitioner while considering the purpose and the rationale behind issuance of the said Instruction No. 4/2019 dated 11th October 2019. The present Writ Petition was directed to be treated as a valid representation of the Petitioner and the CBIC, drawback division was ordered to pass a reasoned order within three months. Hence, the Writ Petition was allowed and all remedies of the Petitioner were left open in accordance with law.

100% EOU Treated as Customs Bonded Premises: Kerala HC Allows Cashew Kernels to Be Re-Processed at Factory

M/S TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 625

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) can be treated as a customs bonded warehouse under the Customs Act, allowing re-processing of imported cashew kernels within its factory premises without violating customs regulations.

The Court clarified that the petitioner must maintain detailed accounts of raw materials, processed products, and waste generated, to satisfy customs inspections and audits. The writ petition was allowed.

SCN Delay in Rs.15.09 Cr GST Evasion Matter: Delhi HC Allows Bank Account Use with Rs. 1.5 Cr Balance Condition

M/S BRIJBIHARI CONCAST PVT. LTD. vs DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE MEERURT ZONAL UNIT & ANR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 626

The Delhi High Court has permitted the petitioner to operate a bank account, subject to maintaining a minimum balance of Rs. 1.5 crores, in the matter involving allegations of Rs. 15.09 crores GST evasion.

The Court directed that a minimum balance of Rs. 1.5 crores be maintained in the attached bank account, while allowing its operation for all other purposes. The Court restrained the creation of third-party interests in a specified immovable property till final adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, with all pending applications also closed.

Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Against Rs. 7.13 Cr GST Demand, Advises Taxpayer to Pursue Appellate Remedy

M/S. VALLABH TEXTILES vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX GST, DELHI EAST CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 627

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Rs. 7.13 crore GST demand, ruling that the taxpayer must pursue appellate remedies under the CGST Act rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court  directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and directed that any appeal so filed would not be dismissed on grounds of limitation. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Detention of Gold Kada of 60 gm: Delhi HC Directs Customs Dept to release Kada Worn by a Sikh Man

DALVINDER SINGH SUDAN vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 628

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has directed the customs department to release detained Gold Kada of 60 gm  worn by a Sikh man as the Gold Kada is merely a personal effect of the Petitioner.

Considering the fact that the gold kada seized is merely a personal effect of the Petitioner, the court held that the detention itself would be contrary to law. Further held that “The Petitioner shall be entitled to release of the gold kada within a period of four weeks from today subject to payment of warehouse charges.”

Order u/s  75(6) of GST Act cannot stand merely on reference of SCNs: Allahabad HC

M/s Hari Shanker Transport vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 629

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017’s Section 75(6) requires that an order be self-contained; merely citing earlier show-cause notifications is insufficient.

The bench set aside the impugned order  and the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then decide in accordance with law.

Non Disclosure of Funds Routed through Tax Havens: Bombay HC upholds Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings

Macrotech Developers Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 630

The Bombay High Court ruled that the petitioner had not given all relevant information required for the tax assessment and that the roundabout transfer of money through different businesses situated in tax havens had not been revealed during the initial proceedings. The court confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

The Bench found that the money is received by the Petitioner through the layering of various offshore entities, and based on the intelligence available, these tax haven entities have an intimate connection with the Petitioner and its Director, and undisclosed funds have been routed by the Petitioner itself through layering via various offshore entities in tax haven countries. The court dismissed the petition and upheld the reassessment.

No Service Tax or GST on Legal Services by Individual Lawyers: Orissa HC

Shivananda Ray vs Principal Commissioner CGST CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 632

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court ruled that individual lawyers are exempt from the levy of service tax and GST on income derived from legal services.

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notices were set aside to the extent they relate to the petitioner’s professional income as a lawyer.

VAT ITC Disallowance: Calcutta HC directs WB Commercial Tax Board for Verification of Documents including Original Tax Invoice and Fresh Consideration of Issues

ALD Automotive Private Limited vs Sales Tax Officer CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 631

In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court directed a fresh adjudication of issues related to the disallowance of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act (WB VAT). The Court observed inconsistencies in the treatment and verification of documents, particularly the original tax invoice and related records, thus ordered to verify the documents.

The Court directed the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board verification to re-examine the issues afresh, taking into account all submissions and documents, and to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Used Vehicles Brought into Telangana Must Pay Life Tax, Even If Already Taxed in Another State: Telangana HC

Sri. Vattikuti. Abbaiah vs The State of Telangana CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 634

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court held that used vehicles brought into the state for permanent use are liable to pay life tax, even if the vehicle had already been taxed in another state.

The court explained that the TSMVT Act operates independently of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the tax liability imposed by Telangana was lawful. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Madras HC Permits  Rectification of clerical errors in GSTR-1 beyond statutory timelines under CGST Act

The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise vs Deepa Traders CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 633

The Madras High Court held that clerical errors must be rectifiable even beyond statutory timelines. Further held that denial of ITC to buyers for no fault of theirs results in double taxation and software limitations are not a justifiable ground to deny rectification.

While allowing the appeal, the Court  K.R.Shriram, Chief Justice and.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that the errors, especially clerical ones are normal and inevitable. Denial of ITC to the purchaser for such errors leads to double taxation. Right to correct mistakes is a natural extension of the right to do business. The GST portal’s inability to permit corrections is not a ground to deny relief. Software should enable compliance, not create hurdles.

GSTR-9 Must Be Considered for ITC Claims Not Reflected in GSTR-3B: Calcutta

PIONEER COOPERATIVE CAR PARKING SERVICING AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 635

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that GSTR-9 annual returns must be considered for input tax credit (ITC) claims, even when such credit is not reflected in the monthly return filed in GSTR-3B.

The court set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue for fresh adjudication, directing that the GSTR-9 return and related documentation be given due consideration. The writ petition was allowed.

Validity of GST Pre-Deposit made from ECRL: Allahabad HC remands Matter to Commissioner of Appeals

M/S National Fertilizers Limited vs The Principal Commissioner CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 636

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, dismissing an appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The matter has now been remanded for fresh consideration.

The bench concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the direction that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass a fresh order after granting both sides a full opportunity to be heard. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia, wherein Sri R. Krishnan, assisted by Sri Veer Bahadur Lal Srivastav and Shri Vinay Singh, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Dipak Seth represented the respondents.

Allahabad HC quashes ₹2.11 Cr GST Demand u/s 74 Due to Lack of Personal Hearing

M/S Integra Micro Systems Private Limited Lko. Thru. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 637

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand of Rs. 2.11 crores which was issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST Act ), 2017 on grounds of lack of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing.

Considering the fact that the original order is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also violative of principles of natural justice, the order dated 25.03.2023 was quashed by the bench. However, the matter was remanded back to the concerned authorities to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with law.

GST Assessment Order u/s 62 incomplete without S. 46 Notice: Allahabad HC quashes Orders

M/S Xestion Advisor Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner Grade II CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 639

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the GST assessment and appellate orders issued against a company after finding that the assessment order under Section 62 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act) was passed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 46.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the tax authority on the next date fixed so that the proceedings can be concluded expeditiously. The Court also clarified that any amount deposited during the pendency of the case will remain subject to the outcome of the fresh proceedings.

Delhi HC sets aside Notice u/s 148A(b) of  Income Tax Act, citing Bar by Limitation

ADM AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 638

The Delhi High Court sets aside notice under section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961, considering its bar by limitation. The bench viewed that the import of the order is not to obliterate the timelines stipulated for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act.

The matter had been remanded to the AO for a fresh consideration in light of the challenge raised by the petitioner. The import of the said order dated 06.12.2022 was not to foreclose any right or contention of the parties. The court set aside the order dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 01.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act.

GST SCN uploaded improperly in ‘additional notices tab’: Delhi HC directs Dept. to rehear

SPARKIN SUNLIT PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND ANR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 640

The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to rehear the show cause notice ( SCN )which was uploaded  improperly in ‘additional notices tab’. The court also directed  to uploaded  the SCN on the Portal in a proper manner and shall also be emailed to the Petitioner on the following email address: sunlitsparkin@gmail.com.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta found that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN, the Court found that the Petitioner ought to be allowed to file a reply. Let the reply to the SCN be now filed within a period of 30 days. The adjudicating authority shall proceed and pass order with respect to the SCN after affording a hearing to the Petitioner.  The hearing notice shall be uploaded on the Portal in a proper manner and shall also be emailed to the Petitioner on the following email address: sunlitsparkin@gmail.com. The court set aside the order..

Subscription fee collected for e-magazine Content does not fall under ‘Fee for Technical Service’: Delhi HC

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SPRINGER NATURE CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE GMBH CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 641

The Delhi High Court in its recent judgement held that the subscription fee collected for e-magazine Content does not fall under ‘Fee for Technical Service’ under Section  9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Further viewed that mere access to technical database or technical literature would not constitute provision of technical services. The sale of technical texts, information or research material collated by extensive research would not constitute rendering technical services within the scope of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.  To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Jurisdiction of AO u/s 153C of Income Tax Act  beyond block of 10 year is invalid: Delhi HC upholds ITAT Order

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMOL AWASTHI CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 642

The Delhi High Court in its judgement upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT)’s Order finding the AO’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the  Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid.  The bench found that AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23.  

Concededly, AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23.  The court upheld the view of ITAT in finding that the AO’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid. 

Win for Real Estate Sector: Bombay HC Rules No GST Without Transfer of TDR or FSI

M/s Shrinivasa Realcon Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Anti Evasion Branch CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 643

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) ruled that GST is not applicable under Entry 5B of the GST Notification dated 28.06.2017, as amended, unless there is a transfer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI).

The court held that the transaction in question did not fall under the ambit of Entry 5B and could not attract GST liability. The show cause notice dated 14.08.2023 and the corresponding order dated 10.12.2024 were quashed. The writ petition was allowed, providing a clear precedent that GST is not applicable in development agreements lacking a transfer of TDR or FSI.

Validity of CBIC notification u/s 168A of GST Act under Challenge: Delhi HC directs Authority to Pass order subject to Supreme Court’s Decision

ASHISH SINGHAL PROPRIETOR APN TRADING CO vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 644

The Delhi High Court, in the petition challenging the validity of the notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) under Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act directed the adjudication authority to pass order subject to the decision of the Supreme Court.

However, the division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta  explicitly stated that any order passed by the adjudicating authority would remain “subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.”

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