Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [Jan 25th to Jan 31st, 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 25th January 2025 to 31st  January 2025)

Prior Approval of CCI  Mandatory before CoC Examination on Resolution Plan Involving Combination:  Supreme Court

INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD vs GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 115

The Supreme Court  observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, containing a proposed combination should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The Court rendered the present plan unsustainable and quashed the same. While allowing the set of appeals, the Court ordered the CoC to reconsider the appellant’s plan as well as any other resolution plan having the requisite CCI approval.

Supreme Court Directs RBI to Standardize Modus and Costs for Property Title Search Report and Loan Sanctioning Officers’ Liability

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SMT. PRABHA JAIN CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 114

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to formulate a standardized framework for property title search reports and establish clear accountability for loan sanctioning officers.

The Bench further directed the RBI to formulate a comprehensive framework for employing certified professionals for property title searches; initiation of a uniform cost structure for property title search reports so as to avoid any arbitrary levy of charges; and reiterated the need to define liabilities for loan sanctioning officers in matters of oversight or negligence.

DRT limited to Adjudicating Recovery u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI, cannot decide on Property Ownership or Validity of Sale/Mortgage: Supreme Court

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SMT. PRABHA JAIN CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 114

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a pivotal judgment affirming that the scope of jurisdiction exercisable by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is limited to the adjudication of recovery proceedings under Section 13(4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), while clarifying the ineligibility of the DRT to decide on matters of property ownership or its sale or mortgage.

While dismissing the Appeal, the Bench laid reference to the Supreme Court decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2004) where the Apex Court reiterated the Civil Courts to be an appropriate forum for such matters and not the DRT whose authority under the SARFAESI Act is confined to the tenets of Section 13(4).

Supreme Court quashes FIR against Ex-Excise Commissioner on Disproportionate Assets held from 1996 to 2020, Observes Change in Economy

NIRANKAR NATH PANDEY vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 113

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India recently quashed a First Information Report ( FIR ) lodged against a former Excise Commissioner accused of possessing disproportionate assets from 1996 to 2020.

Referring to the decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court observed that when no offence is made out against the accused in terms of the FIR, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Setback to Tiger Global in Flipkart Deal: Supreme Court stays DTAA Benefits, says ‘Through Consideration Required’

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS vs TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 112

The latest decision that has been passed by the apex court has stayed the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) benefits granted by the Delhi High Court, which has caused a setback to Tiger Global in the Flipkart deal.

The Supreme Court has thus stayed the order of the Delhi High Court, which favoured Tiger Global International. In its judgement, the Delhi High Court had held that the transactions entered into by the assessee were not aimed at tax avoidance.

Statutory Functionary Cannot Assume powers not Conferred Upon It: Supreme Court Directs Refund of Unduly Retained Stamp Duty

HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 110

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India directed a real-estate developer to issue refund of an amount of ₹27,00,000 received from a buyer, against the Agreement to sell while observing that no statutory functionary of the Government may assume or exercise any powers that have not been explicitly conferred upon it.

Holding that “Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver”, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order, while restoring the previous order by which the CCRA allowed the Refund of Stamp Duty to the Appellant.

S. 87A Rebate Update: Bombay HC Rules Rebate Applies to Total Tax, Including Special Rates Unless Explicitly Excluded

The Chamber of Tax Consultants through its President vs Director General of Income Tax (systems)  CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 181

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court ruled that the rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to the total tax liability of eligible taxpayers, including tax on income charged at special rates, unless explicitly excluded by law.

The court directed the CBDT to ensure the e-filing utility aligns with the law, allowing taxpayers to exercise their statutory right to self-assessment and claim the rebate as per their understanding. The court ordered tax authorities to review previous filings where Section 87A claims were disallowed due to utility restrictions and to process refunds for eligible taxpayers.

SCN issued in 2008 Not Adjudicated for 15 Years: Delhi HC Rejects Placement of Matter in Call Book Excuse, Quashes 2024 Order

VIJAY ENTERPRISES & ANR vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 182

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued in 2008 and an Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2024, citing an unjustified 15-year delay in adjudication. The court rejected the customs department’s justification for the delay, including the repeated placement of the matter in the “call book.”

The court criticized the passing of the Order-in-Original during the pendency of the writ petition, stating that it constituted an attempt at judicial proceedings. It clarified that administrative action cannot proceed in parallel when the court is actively adjudicating the validity of the underlying SCN. The court quashed both the SCN and the Order-in-Original ruling that the excessive delay and procedural lapses rendered the proceedings invalid.

Rs. 8.02 Crores Dispute and Allegation of  Wrongful ITC: Orissa High Court Directs Vedanta to Reply to SCN

M/s. Vedanta Ltd. Jharsuguda vs Union of India and others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 183

The Orissa High Court has ordered Vedanta to respond to the show cause notice about ₹8,02,84,232, which the government believes was an incorrectly obtained input tax credit (ITC).The court held that the authority says and will pass order by 5th February, 2025.

Acting Chief Justice Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo’s bench has held that the Vedanta petitioner will respond to the contested show-cause notice. Vedanta is free to include any point, including the point of limitation, in it. The order will be issued by February 5, 2025, according to the authority.

Pre-SCN Reply must be considered before Issuing GST SCN: Calcutta HC quashes Notice

M/s Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. vs The Deputy Commissioner CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 185

The Calcutta High Court has held that the pre-show cause notice (SCN) reply should be considered before issuing SCN under Goods and Service Tax Act (GST), Act , 2017.The court found that the show-cause notice is a replica of the intimation given earlier and all that the assessing officer has said is that the reply furnished by the appellants in response to the intimation is not found to be satisfactory and hence, not acceptable.

The court quashed the show-cause notice issued under Section 74(1) and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to consider the reply and if it still finds it to be not satisfactory, it will be well-open to the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Proceedings under Income Tax Act against Deceased Assessee  Cannot be Continued against Legal Representative: Karnataka HC

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER vs SMT.PREETHI V CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 184

The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative. It was found that the procedures were started against the deceased Assessee while he was still alive and may have been carried out against his attorneys.

The bench held this after rejecting an appeal from the Income Tax officer contesting a one-judge bench ruling that had supported Preethi V’s petition and revoked the demand and penalty notices as well as any further legal actions that may have followed.

Himachal Pradesh HC Admits Petition Challenging Eligibility Conditions for GSTAT Technical Member

Amit Kashyap vs Principal Secretary & Ors CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 186

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has admitted a petition challenging the eligibility conditions for the appointment of a Technical Member in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

The case has garnered considerable head-turns, with interested ones across the country closely watching the progression. In the interim, the High Court has restrained the Government from making any further appointments, delaying the functioning the GSTAT further, albeit for judicial reasons.

Arrest on Wrongful Availment of  ITC Based on Manipulated Bills: Rajasthan HC Refuses to Grant  Bail

Vineet Jain vs Union Of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 187

The  Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to 10.87 crores, based on forged transactions and also manipulated the bills showing transportation of goods from Delhi to Jaipur. The court found that the material collected by the department prima facie exhibits that the petitioner was fraudulently profited from the ITC based on sham bills obtained or procured in the name of non-existing firms.

The court refused to grant bail on the ground that the material collected by the department prima facie exhibits that the petitioner was fraudulently profited from the ITC based on sham bills obtained or procured in the name of non-existing firms.

GST Evasion by Transporting Gold Jewellery citing Display at Exhibition: Madras HC upholds Confiscation Notice

Mukti Gold Private Limited vs State Tax Officer CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 189

The Madras High Court recently upheld the confiscation of Gold Jewellery claimed by a jeweller to be transported from Mumbai to Tamil Nadu for the purpose of displaying at exhibitions and to potential resellers, observing violation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) provisions intended to provide leeways for the transport procedure.

Observing that the overriding effect of Section 129 over Section 130 of TNGST Act would be applicable only for matters regarding detention and seizure of goods and not confiscation, the Court upheld the decision of the Revenue Authorities and dismissed the Writ while granting livery to the Petitioner to file their reply to the confiscation notice within 14 days of the order for appropriate adjudication.

GST DRC-07 w/o DIN: Andhra Pradesh HC quashes Order

Sunrise Marine Services vs The Assistant Commissioner St and Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 190

Read More: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati recently quashed an Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 observing that no Director Identification Number (DIN) was mentioned in the Assessment Order.

In light of the precedents set by the aforesaid judgments, the Andhra Pradesh High Court proceeded to set aside the impugned proceedings passed by the Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 while maintaining their liberty to conduct fresh assessment after providing due notice and assigning DIN to the new assessment order.

Return Filed via Part-Time Accountant: Madras HC Condones 78-Day Delay Due to Taxpayer’s Unawareness of GST Portal Notices

Tvl Ponnusamy vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 191

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal before the GST appellate authority, citing the petitioner’s lack of awareness about notices uploaded on the GST portal and the returns filed by a part-time accountant.

The court set aside the appellate authority’s rejection order and directed it to accept the appeal and decide it on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The writ petition was disposed of, and the miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.

Issuance of Consolidated SCN for Multiple Years  Allowable u/s 74 of CGST: Kerala HC

M/S. X L INTERIORS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 188

In a recent case, the High Court of Kerala viewed that the bunching of show cause notices does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as it is open to the petitioner to take up any contention peculiar to any particular year in the reply to the show cause notice.

The Single bench of Justice Gopinath P directed that the time for filing a reply to show cause notice shall be extended till 21.11.2024. Since the extension of time is at the request of the petitioner, any limitation for passing orders for any of the financial years will also stand extended by similar period i.e. the period from 21.10.2024 (last date for filing reply as per show cause notice) till 21.11.2024 will stand excluded.

Revenue cannot extend Reassessment Notice Period Due to Earlier Litigation Delays: Delhi HC

ABHINAV JINDAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52 1 CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 192

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot issue a fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed limitation period if the initial notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued without following due procedure.

The court emphasized that the Revenue must adhere to legal procedures and initiate reassessment proceedings within the prescribed time frame. It also noted that no stay order prevented the Revenue from issuing a fresh notice within the limitation period. The petition was thus allowed, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee.

Non-Disclosure of Sensitive Information by DGGI for Search Operation not Amounts to Violation of Natural Justice Principles: Calcutta HC

Deltatech Gaming Limited vs Union of India & Ors CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 194

The Calcutta High Court, in its recent judgement has held that the non-disclosure of sensitive information gathered by Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) forming the basis of search operation is not violative of principles of natural justice.

The Court made it clear that, especially when delicate third-party interests are at stake, the principles of natural justice do not grant a right to indiscriminate or irrelevant disclosures. Furthermore, it was heldthat as the department had already given the petitioner access to all of the cited documents, the withholding of sensitive material in this case was appropriate and did not violate natural justice principles.

Customs Gold Baggage Rules: Delhi HC issues Interim Directions w.r.t. Tourists of Indian/Foreign Origin

ANJALI PANDEY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 196

In a recent decision affecting tourists carrying Gold Ornaments, of both Indian and Foreign Origin, the Delhi HIgh Court has issued interim guidelines to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) regarding treatment of gold ornaments as ‘personal effects’ and issuance of detention receipts.

The directions were to be followed henceforth by the Customs Department in all cases where jewellery is seized or detained from tourists of either Indian or foreign origin

PMLA Scam of Investment in Cloud Particles: Punjab & Haryana HC refuses to Defreeze Bank Account

In a  scam of Huge transaction through induced investment in Cloud particles, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has refused to de-freeze bank account of Vuenow Infotech Pvt. Ltd and directed the assessee company to present case before concerned adjudicating authority.The Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ) 2002  is entitled to adjudicate the matter on receipt of a complaint.

The Adjudicating Authority is entitled to adjudicate the matter on receipt of a complaint. Before the Adjudicating Authority all the stakeholders are entitled to participate and explain their position. The court disposed of the writ petitions  with the liberty to the petitioners to present their case before the Adjudicating Authority under the 1999 Act as well as the 2002 Act.

Money in Bank Account Liable for Provisional Attachment u/s 281B of Income Tax Act: Kerala HC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MOHAMMED SALIH CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 193

The Kerala High Court has held that Money in bank account is a ‘property’ and liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

As a result, it is clear that the authorities must make a determination on the likely demand, which at that point is obviously impossible to specify precisely. The amount of property that is attached, including the money that is attached to bank accounts, should, nevertheless, be in proportion to the likely demand, including the penalty. The bench allowed the appeal.

Availability of Statutory Remedy: Kerala HC dismisses Challenge against Benami Act Proceedings

MUHAMMED SUHAIB P C. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 198

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court dismisses petition against show cause notice (SCN) and provisional attachment order under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988  on availability of statutory remedy.

The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas court viewed that the petitioner can raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority and since such a remedy is available, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner is at liberty to file an objection within a period of three weeks from today.

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/availability-of-statutory-remedy-kerala-hc-dismisses-challenge-against-benami-act-proceedings/485279/

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