Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [May 10th to May 16th,2025]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week 10th May 2025 –  16th May 2025)

Supreme Court upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 5A, Kerala GST Act and Section 7A of Tamil Nadu GST Act

C.T. KOCHOUSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 165

In a significant ruling with implications for state taxation powers, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Addressing concerns about potential overreach, the Court underlined that the tax is not imposed on the manufactured product or on the act of dispatch, but strictly on the purchase of raw materials that have not been subjected to tax under standard sales channels.

Volume-Based Discounts Not Anti-Competitive: Supreme Court in Schott India Case After 11 Years Battle

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA vs SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 166

The Supreme Court of India ruled that volume-based discounts offered by dominant enterprises do not, by themselves, constitute abuse of dominance under competition law.

The Court also found that the CCI’s refusal to permit cross-examination of key witnesses undermined the evidentiary integrity of the proceedings and amounted to a violation of natural justice.

Crude Degummed Soybean Oil (CDSO) qualifies for Customs Duty Exemption: Supreme Court

NOBLE RESOURCES vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 167

The Supreme Court has ruled that crude degummed soybean oil (CDSO) qualifies for the customs-duty waiver available under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. ending a years-long dispute between the trade house Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt Ltd and the customs department.

The Court set aside the High Court order, quashed the duty demand and confirmed Noble Resources’ entitlement to exemption from basic customs duty, additional duty and special additional duty.

Supreme Court upholds Inclusion of Product Support Services by Coal India in Customs Duty Valuation

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 168

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently affirmed that product support services provided by Coal India Limited are directly connected to the importation process and must be considered when calculating the customs duty under the Customs Act.

“The services provided were directly relatable to the import of the goods by way of product support service which is covered by Sections 14(1) and 14(1A) of the Customs Act read with Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules”, the bench observed.

Madras HC Condones 7-Day Delay in GST Appeal Due to Auditor’s Lapse and Lack of Portal Access

Tvl. Parasakthi Transport vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 707

The High Court of Madras, condoned a 7-day delay in the filing of a Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal, which was caused by the assessee’s lack of GST knowledge, portal access, and reliance on an auditor who failed to inform about the assessment proceedings

It condoned the 7-day delay and allowed the writ petition. The appellate authority’s order was set aside, and the Court directed the first respondent to consider the appeal on merits after giving the petitioner an hearing opportunity.

SCN Uploaded Under ‘Additional Notices’ Tab Without Proper Intimation: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order

M/S KESHAV METALS vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 708

In a recent ruling,the Delhi High Court,set aside an order passed against assessee, noting that the show cause notice (SCN) had been uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab without proper intimation or an opportunity for the petitioner to respond.

The division bench of Prathiba M.Singh (Judge) and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta (Judge) also noted that changes had been made to the portal after 16th January 2024 to make SCNs more visible. Despite the SCN being from May 2024, since the petitioner hadn’t been given a chance to respond or attend a hearing, the impugned order was set aside.

Andhra Pradesh HC Allows ITC Availment to Pepsi Manufacturers on Refrigerators, Coolers, Freezers

M/s. Pearl Beverages Ltd. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 709

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the soft drinks manufacturers under the brand name of Pepsi are eligible for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on refrigerators, coolers, and freezers.

The court ruled that the revision petitioner’s payment was refundable up to the input tax credit amount for the refrigerators and coolers. The remainder of the claim is denied, but the revision petitioner is eligible for the input tax credit for the coolers and refrigerators.

Gauhati HC Sets aside ITAT Order passed Ignoring  Provisions of S. 292B of Income Tax Act

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shankar Lall Goenka CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 710

In a recent ruling , the Gauhati High Court sets aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal  (ITAT) Order passed Ignoring  Provisions of S. 292B  of Income Tax Act

While allowing the appeal, the court set aside the matter and remanded it to the ITAT for deciding the appeal preferred by the assessee afresh on other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal preferred before it.

Auditor’s Advice on Rs. 20L Threshold Resulted in GST Registration Cancellation: Madras HC Orders Reopening of Portal for Return Filing

Ashokkumar V The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 711

The Madras High Court has ordered the department to make changes in the architecture of the GST ( Goods and Services tax ) portal to enable the petitioner to file pending GST returns and regularize after the GST registration was cancelled due to reliance on the advice of an auditor on the threshold limit.

However, the Court laid down certain conditions: it should be paid off without any unverified Input Tax Credit (ITC) and any unused ITC should be examined and sanctioned by the department before its future utilization.

GST Proper Officer Must issue SCN to Invoke S.73 Even if Summary of SCN is Issued: Gauhati HC

RANJIT DUTTA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 712

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court reiterated that the issuance of a Summary of Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) under Form GST DRC-01 cannot be a substitute for a formal SCN as required under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.

Relying on a precedent, the High Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the summary of show cause notice and the summary of order.

TRAN-1 filed when GST portal Reopened following SC’s direction and Dept Circular: Madras HC finds Appeal of Dept infructuous

The Principal Chief Commissioner vs Union of India CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 713

In a case related to the transitional filing of TRAN-1 forms under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, the Madras High Court dismissed as infructuous a departmental appeal against a prior single-judge order that had allowed the assessee to file the TRAN-1 form.

The bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jyothiraman observed that no substantive dispute remained for adjudication and dismissed the departmental appeal as infructuous.

ITC Blocked Alleging Dealers found Non-Existent: Madras HC Directs GST Department to Consider Representation for Unblocking ECRL u/r 86A

A J Power Center vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 714

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department to consider a taxpayer’s representation seeking unblocking of their Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ) under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, after input tax credit ( ITC ) was blocked on allegations that the petitioner had availed credit from non-existent dealers.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy heard the counsel for writ petitioner submission that it will suffice if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 13.03.2025

GST Registration Cancelled Based on Alleged Suspicious Transactions in Bank and Portal: Madras HC Directs to File Revocation Application

M/s.Vrishti Mercantile vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 715

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed a taxpayer to seek statutory remedy by filing a revocation application after the cancellation of their GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration on allegations of suspicious transactions reflected in the petitioner’s bank records and documents uploaded on the GST portal.

Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a directive that the petitioner will make a revocation application along with the supporting documentation.

Merely Passing Ex Parte Order fulfilling Empty Formalities Lead to Unnecessary Litigation and Judicial Delay: Madras HC warns GST Dept

S.P.Forms vs Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 716

The Madras High Court has warned the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department against the mechanical issuance of ex-parte orders without ensuring effective service of notice upon taxpayers.

The court Considering the petitioner’s readiness to pay part of the tax and to contest the matter on merits, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the department on condition to pay 25% of disputed amount.

GST ITC Blocked over Suspected Fake Invoices: Madras HC directs dept to Resolve Issue within 5 Weeks

P Murugan vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 717

The Madras High Court directed the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Department to resolve within five weeks the issue of blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) of a taxpayer accused of dealing with fake invoices.

The Bench directed the department to provide a seven-day clear notice fixing a date for personal hearing and to consider the petitioner’s documentary evidence.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Invalid Without Clear Specification of Grounds in Notice: Delhi HC

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 718

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the notice issued does not clearly specify the ground, whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The High Court noted that the assessee had made full disclosure of all the pertinent details and that the rejection of its claim was due to conflicting interpretations and not any intent to conceal.

Delhi HC Allows Filing of Undertaking on GSTN Portal for Recredit of Substantial ITC

ANKUR AGARWAL vs CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 719

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling, has allowed the filing of undertakings on the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) portal for recredit of substantial Input Tax Credit (ITC) via PMT-03.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta instructed the petitioner to meet with the concerned officer at the GSTN office on May 14, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. The court further held that the petitioner’s representative may visit the GST office, and the concerned GST officer will provide the petitioner with any necessary help in uploading the PMT-03 forms.

Setback to Himalaya Wellness Company: Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Challenge to 15 Pages SCN Demanding Inadmissible GST ITC Worth Rs. 4.37 Crores

M/s Himalaya Wellness Company vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 720

In a major ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed the plea by the Himalaya Wellness Company challenging a 15 pages show cause notice (SCN) demanding inadmissible GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 4.37 crores.

The court observed that the department had issued the petitioner with a comprehensive 15-page show cause notice that included enough information about how it had reached its judgment to warrant the petitioner’s show cause notice.

GST Portal Credentials only Known to Accountant who failed to inform Proceedings: Madras HC Directs Challenge to Ex-Parte Order Before Appellate Authority

M/s.Shalu Cabs vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 721

In case of the accountant’s failure to inform the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) proceedings which led to the ex-parte order, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court has directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

Sale of Goods at Concessional Price cannot be termed as Sham Transactions: Jharkhand HC Quashes GST Notice

M/s. Sri Ram Stone Works vs State of Jharkhand CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 722

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a concessional sale price cannot be regarded as a sham transaction and invalidated the Goods and Service Tax (GST) notice.

The court clarified that the notices contain certain overlapping data about alleged discrepancies in the returns of different writ petitioners. The Assessing Officer may issue new notifications regarding inconsistencies in the returns, if any, pertaining to specific writ petitioners; we will not comment on the aforementioned disparity as stated in the notices vis-à-vis returns.

S.153C Orders issued Based on Third-Party Search Materials: Madras HC directs Assessee to Approach Appellate Authority

M/s.Ramakrishnan Chettiar Ravisheker & The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 723

In a recent ruling, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority instead.

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh relying on the precedent, the Court dismissed the current petitions while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within one month.

60-day Time Limit u/s 62(2) of GST Act is Directory, Delay can be Condoned based on Merits with Payment of Interest and Penalty: Madras HC

Tvl. Priya Woods Craft vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 724

The Madras High Court has held that the 60-day time limit prescribed under Section 62(2) of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, 2017, for furnishing returns after a best judgment assessment is not mandatory but directory in nature.

Since the petitioner had not filed any formal application for condonation of delay, the Court directed him to file such an application within 15 days. The assessing officer was instructed to consider the same on merits and, if satisfied, allow the petitioner to file revised returns after fulfilling statutory liabilities like interest and penalty.

No Allegation of Suppression or Fraud in GST S. 74 SCN: Madras HC directs to Treat S.74 Notice as S. 73 notice Enabling to Avail Amnesty Scheme

M/s.Agni Estate Foundations Private Ltd. vs The State Tax Officer CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 725

The Madras High Court held that where no specific allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement, or fraud is made in a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, such a notice cannot be sustained under that provision.

The court recognized the government counsel’s submission that the case could be reconsidered and held it proper to order that the challenged notices and orders should be treated as those issued under Section 73, thus upholding the petitioner’s right to avail amnesty benefits. Accordingly the petition was disposed of.

Non-Filing of GSTR-3B Due to Covid Prevents ITC Claim before Prescribed Date: Madras HC Quashes Orders Citing Sec. 16 Amendment

Ashok International vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Gst CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 726

The Madras High Court quashed demand notices issued for denial of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) on account of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns due to covid, citing the retrospective amendment made to Section 16 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act.

It also directed that any amounts debited from the petitioners’ credit or cash ledgers be refunded or allowed to be adjusted against future tax liabilities. However, the Court clarified that the department would be at liberty to proceed against assessees for other issues such as incorrect or fraudulent ITC claims, if any, as per law.

Bombay HC Quashes Rejection of Excess DDT Refund Under India-Mauritius Treaty, Directs Decision in Eight Weeks

Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 727

The Bombay High Court, quashed the rejection of an excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) refund claimed under the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty and directed the tax authorities to take a final decision within eight weeks.

The bench determined that a writ of mandamus could not be issued based solely on the 29 November 2018 communication. It quashed the 16 June 2022 communication, confirmed that the 29 November 2018 communication could not be treated as a final refund decision, and directed the first Respondent to make a final decision on the refund within eight weeks, after hearing the Petitioner.

Bombay HC Outlines Steps to Verify If Viacom 18’s Transponder Payments Qualify as ‘Royalty’ Under India-US DTAA and Tax Law

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 728

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court remanded a group of income tax appeals filed by Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh factual determination on whether payments made by the company to Intelsat Corporation for transponder services qualify as “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The High Court clarified that both parties are free to raise all legal and factual contentions before the CIT(A), who was directed to dispose of the matter by December 31, 2025. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Delhi HC Highlights “Overflowing Dockets” due to Shortage of Judges, Calls for Comprehensive reform in judicial staffing

MUKESH GUPTA @ MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 729

The Delhi High Court highlighted the “overflowing dockets” due to a shortage of judges and comprehensive reform in judicial staffing as the court admitted that it is “unable to decide” appeals within a reasonable timeframe.

A single bench of  Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that “On account of the acute shortage of judges as compared to the general population and the litigation quantum, for past long time, the list of regular matters does not reach till end of the day of hearing.

GST Dues of Deceased Not Recoverable from Legal Heir Without Evidence of Business Continuation: Jharkhand HC

Rishi Shangari vs Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 730

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that GST dues of a deceased person cannot be recovered from a legal heir unless there is concrete evidence showing continuation of the business by the heir after the death of the original proprietor.

The court ruled that the Assistant Commissioner of CGST order was perverse, unsupported by evidence, hence unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Delhi HC Flags Pattern of Misusing Writs to Escape GST Fraud Penalties, Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost

M/S MAHESH FABRINOX PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 731

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court pointed out a growing trend of businesses involved in GST fraud invoking writ jurisdiction to avoid penalty proceedings. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for misusing the legal process and attempting to bypass statutory remedies.

The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks. The court clarified that the petitioner was free to pursue any alternative remedies available under the law, including filing an appeal.

Jharkhand HC Quashes SCN Summary in Form GST DRC-01 Without Officer’s Digital Signature

Sadanand Prasad Barnwal vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 732

In a recent case, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed the summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 as it was found to be issued without the officer’s digital signature.

The court overturned the order and the procedures, and the department was given the liberty to start over if the law allowed it.

Andhra Pradesh HC allows Examination of Alleged GST Evader in Presence of an Advocate

Prakash Rao Ravinuthala and Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 733

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed the examination of the alleged GST evader in the presence of an advocate and barred the detention beyond office hours.

The court ruled that the examination be held between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm during business hours, and that the petitioners would not be held after that time.

CBI cannot be Rendered Helpless u/s 17A PC Act: Delhi HC refuses Bail to Northern Railway Officer

ARUN KUMAR JINDAL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 734

The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cannot be rendered helpless under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires the CBI to obtain prior sanction and refused to grant bail to a Northern Railway Officer who is accused under the PC Act.

Despite receiving a notification, the petitioner’s son unquestionably failed to give the CBI the key to the bank locker.  Preliminary evidence also suggested that the petitioner was involved in the other intercepted calls.

Delhi HC directs Dept to file Appeal before Supreme Court on issue of Service Tax for Transfer of Development Rights

THE COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE vs M/S HAAMID REAL ESTATE PVT LTD. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 735

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has directed the Department to file the appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order on service tax for transfer of development rights before the Supreme Court.

In dismissing the appeal from the GST Department, the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta determined that, under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Supreme Court would hear an appeal against the CESTAT ruling

Relief to Technova Imaging Systems: Bombay HC Allows Depreciation Claim Without Section 72A Approval

Technova Imaging Systems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 736

The Bombay High Court granted relief to Technova Imaging Systems and allowed the depreciation claim without the approval under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench observed that no Section 7A approval was needed for a depreciation claim post-amalgamation. The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice M.S. Karnik, allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Prima Facie Adjustment of ESI/PF Disallowance u/s 143(1)(a) Not Permissible during Pendency of  Debatable Checkmate Case before SC: Chhattisgarh HC

Raj Kumar Bothra C-101/5 vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 737

In an important ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot disallow ESI/PF contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the pendency of Checkmate Case before Supreme Court.

Therefore, the Court set aside the intimation dated 16.12.2021, the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.07.2024, and the ITAT’s order dated 26.09.2024, restoring the assessee’s claim. The Revenue, however, was given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 143(3) if deemed necessary.

Validity of GST Portal Notice Service: Madras HC Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Due to Ineffective Communication

M/s.Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited vs Commercial State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 738

The Madras High Court set aside the ex parte assessment order passed against the assessee due to ineffective communication through the Goods Service  Tax (GST) portal notice service.

The Court criticized the respondents for not using more effective methods, like sending reminders through registered post after the initial notices went unanswered. It concluded that the service, though valid, was ineffective due to the respondents’ failure to explore alternative methods

GST Demand Order Passed alleging Excess ITC Claim: Madras HC directs to Consider Application for Rectification of Order

M/s. Saamy Trading vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 739

The Madras High Court has directed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department to consider and dispose of a rectification application filed by the petitioner rectifying the order passed on the grounds of alleged excess Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claim.

Noting the narrow scope of relief prayed for and without entering into the merits of the case of the petitioner, the High Court ordered the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the application for rectification dated 27.03.2025 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the Court. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Voluntary Payment of GST Penalty concludes all Proceedings u/s 129: Orissa HC

M/s. Khanna Engineering vs The Commissioner of CT & GST CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 740

The Orissa High Court recently reaffirmed that all proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) once the arraigned entity voluntarily pays the proposed penalty.

Considering that the penalty was paid, there was no requirement for the authorities to issue a further order in Form GST MOV-09, and the petitioner could not turn around and challenge the detention on technical grounds. Finding no merit in the petition, the Orissa High Court proceeded to dismiss the matter.

Magistrate Lacks Authority to Order DRI Revaluation of Seized Goods at Preliminary Stage: Delhi HC

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE vs SWARAJ INTERNATIONAL & ANR. CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 741

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that a Magistrate does not have the authority to direct the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to revalue seized goods during the preliminary stage of investigation under the Customs Act.

The court allowed the DRI’s petition and set aside the trial court’s direction for revaluation. But the court permitted the certification of the goods under Section 110(1B) to proceed and directed that such certification be completed within three months. The petition was disposed of.

Bombay HC Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal, Upholds ITAT Order Quashing ‘Mechanical’ Reassessment Initiated Without AO’s Independent Satisfaction

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs Agfa India Pvt. Ltd CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 742

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s ( ITAT ) order quashing reassessment proceedings against Agfa India Pvt. Ltd., for the Assessment Year 2007–08. The High Court held that the reassessment was initiated without the Assessing Officer (AO) having formed an independent belief that income had escaped assessment, as required under the law.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the Revenue’s favour. It upheld the ITAT’s order quashing the reassessment proceedings as legally invalid.

Bombay HC Dismisses Writ Petition Against Retrospective Withdrawal of Industrial Park Tax Benefits

Pantheon Infrastructure Private Limited vs The Union of India CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 743

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the retrospective withdrawal of tax benefits under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. The petitioner, Pantheon Infrastructure Private Limited, had sought relief against the Central Government’s notification dated June 22, 2017, which rescinded an earlier notification that had granted tax exemptions under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Pantheon Infrastructure Private Limited, refusing to interfere with the Central Government’s decision to withdraw the tax exemptions retrospectively.

Delay in Filing GST Appeal due to Representative’s Ill-Health: Madras HC Condones 110-Day Delay on Condition

Tvl.Kolors Healthcare LLP vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 744

The Madras High Court has condoned a 110-day delay in filing Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal citing the ill-health of the petitioner’s Authorized Representative as a genuine reason for the delay and directed the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount to proceed with the appeal.

The Court directed the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on record and pass orders on merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing. The writ petition challenging the assessment order was dismissed, as the matter was to be addressed through the appeal process.

Teacher receives Income Tax Notice after Bank Manager Misused Account: Madras HC directs Dept to Hear Matter

Smt.Santhana Narayanan Kiruthika vs The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department New Delhi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 745

The Madras High Court has directed the Income Tax department to grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing to respond to allegations of fraudulent transactions in which the bank account allegedly misused by the bank manager.

The court set aside the impugned order, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show-cause notice, following which the respondent must provide a personal hearing and pass a fresh order.

Extensive Legal Consultation and Exploring Options Not Valid Grounds for Delay in Filing GST Appeal: Madras HC Condones 90-Day Delay with Condition

AVM HI FI Stationeries vs The Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 746

The Madras High Court has condoned a 90-day delay in filing an appeal against a GST assessment order, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The court ruled that the grounds cited by the petitioner for delay in filing GST appeal was invalid.

The court set aside the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 and directed the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on record upon payment of the additional pre-deposit. The Court directed the authority to pass orders on merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing.

GST SCN served on Different Address: Delhi HC directs assessee to Correct Details in GST Portal

THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD. VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 747

The Delhi High Court in a recent case directed the assessee milk federation to correct the details of address mentioned in Goods and Service Tax (GST) Portal, as the GST  Show cause notice (scn) issued on wrong address. The court found that the confusion that has been caused by the addresses has ensured that the personal hearing notices have not been served upon the petitioner.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the petitioners to get all their details corrected on the GST portal within 15 days, failing which the department will not be blamed for future notices being sent at the wrong address.

Bombay HC quashes Income Tax Notice Issued u/s 148 which was beyond the time period specified under statute

Gurpreet Singh vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 748

In  a recent case, the Bombay High Court has quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued beyond the period specified under section 149(1) of the Act

The court found that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax  Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the Income Tax  Act.

Gujarat HC Asks GST Council to Decide Leviability of Compensation Cess on Goods Supplied to Merchant Exporter

M/S. SOPARIWALA EXPORT PVT. LTD. vs JOINT COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 749

The Gujarat High Court has requested that the GST Council determine whether products provided to merchant exporters are subject to the compensatory cess.

The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray stated that since neither the Central Government nor the State Governments have issued notifications under the Compensation Cess Act, the assessee is responsible for paying the compensation cess at the standard rate, which is 160% of the supply of goods to merchant exporters for export.

Rejection of e-Form NDH-4 Application Beyond 45-Day Limit: Madras HC Allows Fresh Reply and Directs Final Order

M/s.Thooya Sahaya Annai Nidhi Limited Union Of India Rep. by The Deputy Director CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 750

The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh reply within two weeks regarding the rejection of its e-Form NDH-4 application, which was passed beyond the 45-day time limit, and directed the second respondent to pass final orders within four weeks, leaving the legal validity of the provisions open.

A single member bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the impugned order and sought a fresh order, considering the additional explanation submitted. The bench allowed the petitioner to submit a new reply within two weeks addressing the issues raised in the order.

Delhi HC Upholds Order Demanding Wrongfully Availed ITC as Assessee fails to file Reply or Document

PRET STUDY BY JANAK FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 751

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling ,upheld an order confirming the demand of Rs. 34,92,903 for Input Tax Credit (ITC) wrongfully availed by the assessee, due to the failure to file a reply or submit documents.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta found the order appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Since the petitioner had not been diligent in attending hearings, the Department was not at fault.

No Justification to Withhold Duty Drawback: Delhi HC Directs Customs to Release ₹9.13 Lakh to Exporter

SANS FRONTIERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DRAWBACK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 752

The High Court of Delhi, directed Customs to release ₹9.13 lakh in duty drawback to the exporter, stating there was no justification for withholding the amount.

The Division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta following this, held that there was no reason to hold back the duty drawback and directed the authorities to release it within 30 days as per law. It clarified that the payment would be subject to the outcome of the ongoing appeal. The petition was then disposed of.

Delhi HC Orders Provisional Release of Roasted Areca Nuts for Industrial use after Conflicting Test Reports

M/S PERFECT TRADING CO. vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 753

The High Court of Delhi, ordered the provisional release of a consignment of Roasted Areca Nuts imported by the petitioner for industrial use, following conflicting test reports.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta reviewed the reports and found inconsistencies in the testing. Initial reports from CRCL and FSSAI identified the goods as “Roasted Areca Nuts,” but later CRCL reports stated the sample was unfit for human consumption due to moisture, mould, and insect damage.

GST Registration Cancellation with Retrospective Effect Invalid if Prior Cancellation Request Filed by Assessee: Delhi HC

GARG CANDLE WORKS vs COMMISSIONER, DELHI GST & ANR  CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 754

The Delhi High Court ruled that Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration cancellation with retrospective effect is invalid if prior cancellation request is filed by assessee.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the GST registration would stand cancelled from 14th May, 2024. It also clarified that any other proceedings linked to the GSTIN would remain unaffected.

Reconciliation of TDS Deposition Under Wrong GSTIN: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order

EBIXCASH MOBILITY SOFTWARE INDIA LIMITED vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATOWARD 101 ZONE 9 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 755

The Delhi High Court,in a matter concerning reconciliation of Tax Deducted at Source(TDS) deposited under an incorrect Goods and Service Tax Identification Number(GSTIN), set aside the impugned order and granted the petitioner an opportunity to present its case.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 10th June 2025 and submit any additional documents through the portal. These documents would be considered, and a complete adjudication would be made.

Delhi HC Condones 1610-Day Delay in Customs Appeal Due to ED Custody, Health Issues, and COVID-19 Disruptions

M/S DURGA APPARELS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 756

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling, condoned a 1610-day delay in a customs appeal due to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody, health issues, and COVID-19 disruptions.

The bench directed the petitioner to deposit ₹5 lakhs as costs with the department and warned that no unnecessary adjournments should be sought before CESTAT. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal before CESTAT for adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of.

Not All Expenses with Enduring Benefit Qualify as Capital Expenditure: Delhi HC in Genpact Services LLC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1 vs GENPACT SERVICES LLC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 757

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that not all expenses resulting in an enduring benefit qualify as capital expenditure and dismissed a penalty appeal filed by the Income Tax Department.

The bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that no substantial question of law arose. The court held that vague penalty notices violate principles of natural justice, especially when the underlying claim is legally debatable and factually disclosed in tax filings

Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Over “Hidden” SCN within Additional Notices Tab on Portal

WORLD ART PRESS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MS RASHI BANSAL vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 758

The Delhi High Court recently set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order, observing that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in question had been uploaded solely under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal, unbeknownst to the Petitioner entity.

The Court also clarified that the validity of the impugned notification is left open impending the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled ‘M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors’.

Delhi HC Grants Belated GST Appeal Remedy u/s 107 Act due to Procedural Lapses in Adjudication

M/S. SHUDH HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED VS GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER WARD- 44 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 759

The Delhi High Court recently permitted an aggrieved petitioner to avail of the appellate remedies as enshrined under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 observing procedural lapses that had occurred during the adjudication process.

Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court found that the sequence of events laid prejudice to the purpose of the adjudicatory process and permitted the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – albeit belatedly.

No Evidence of Price Rigging: Calcutta HC Dismisses Income Tax Dept Appeal in Rs. 71L Penny Stock Loss Case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs R.C. SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 760

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department in a case involving the disallowance of ₹71.38 lakh in losses claimed from transactions in penny stock scrips.

Affirming the Tribunal’s reasoning, the High Court concluded that no substantial legal issue was involved and accordingly dismissed both the appeal and the accompanying stay application.

Calcutta HC Upholds Shifting of NCLT Premises to New Town, Dismisses appeal of NCLT Bar Association

NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 761

The Calcutta High Court reiterated a single bench ruling that rejected a plea by NCLT Bar Association contesting the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ proposal to relocate the NCLT Kolkata headquarters from the High Court to a new structure in the New Town neighborhood of the city.

In essence, the writ petition aims to subtly assert a public interest, which is not permitted under the pretense of a personal writ. Furthermore, unless proven to be capricious or malicious, which is not the case here, the location and operation of a tribunal are outside the purview of judicial scrutiny and lie under the purview of executive policy determinations.

Validity of GST Notification upheld without personal hearing of assessee: Delhi HC Sets aside Order

SANGEETA GOEL vs SALES TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 762

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Goods and Service Tax (GST ) order which upheld the validity of the GST notification even without personal hearing of assessee. The bench found that the Petitioner had then applied for rectification through an application raising various grounds, which were rejected without considering any of the raised grounds.

ITR filed rejected in absence of TAR: Delhi HC sets aside Income Tax Order rejecting Condonation Application

M/S NIKON FINLEASE PVT. LTD vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -04, DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 763

The Delhi High Court  has set aside the Income Tax order which rejected the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for condonation of delay in filing the revised the income tax return. The ITR filed was rejected  on the ground that it was not accompanied by the Tax Audit Report [TAR].

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karla viewed that the petitioner has made out a case of genuine hardship for condonation of delay in filing the revised ITR. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Issue on Service Tax Leviability: Orissa HC sets GST Order passed without Recording Reason for Conclusion

M/s. Pacific International Private Limited vs Commissioner (Appeal) CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 764

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has set aside the Good and Service Tax (GST) order passed without recording reason for conclusion on the issue of service tax leviability.

It was found that the Appellate Authority has not made any discussion as to category under which the consideration with respect to services rendered during the periods in question would be exigible to service tax

Madras HC Upholds Circular Allowing Creditor to Recommend Resolution Professional in Application u/s 95 of IBC

Ashwani Kumar Bhatia vs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 765

The Madras High Court stated that the circular issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on December 21, 2023, under section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), allowing the creditor to recommend a Resolution Professional in an application filed under Section 95 of the Code, could not be considered to be outside the purview of the Code, particularly Section 97, which states that the IBBI is in charge of selecting the insolvency professional in creditor-initiated insolvency proceedings. This circle increases the overall process’s efficiency.

Calcutta HC Upholds ITAT Order Deleting Addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act made on account of Bogus Share Capital

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL vs WISE INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 766

In  a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order which upheld the CIT(A) order deleting addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made on made on account of  Bogus Share Capital.

Since there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, the Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) dismissed the appeal.

Composite SCN u/s 74 of GST Act for Multiple Assessment Years Not Permissible: Kerala HC

M/S. THARAYIL MEDICALS vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 767

The Kerala High Court has held that the issuance of a composite show cause notice ( SCN ) under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act for multiple assessment years is not permissible.

he Court set aside the show cause notice for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 but upheld it for 2017-18, with a direction to complete the adjudication within one month. It also allowed the authorities to issue fresh and separate SCNs for the remaining years if deemed necessary, clarifying that the limitation period shall exclude the time spent during the court proceedings.

Challenge to GST Notifications u/s 168A Pending in SC: Delhi HC Orders Fresh Adjudication, Directs Reconsideration of Taxpayer’s Reply

KOREA MARINE TRANSPORT CO LTD vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 204 CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 768

The Delhi High Court has remanded a Goods and Services Tax (GST) matter for fresh adjudication, directing the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the Petitioner’s reply to a show-cause notice.

The court clarified that any fresh order shall be subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in S.L.P No. 4240/2025 and the Delhi High Court’s ruling in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 in the case titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India regarding the state notification.

GST Portal Access Issue and Unserved SCN: Delhi HC Overturns GST Order

M/S. JINENDER PAPER MART vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASSII CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 769

The Delhi High Court has overturned an adjudication order and granted the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) that was not properly served, with restricted access to the GST portal due to a prior suspension of their registration.

The court also directed to restore the GST portal to enable the petitioner to access notices and documents. The court clarified that the validity of the notifications remains open, subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the S.L.P and the Delhi High Court’s ruling on parallel state notifications.

Delhi HC grants Petitioner 2 Months’ Time to File Reply to Non-speaking, Cryptic GST Adjudicatory Order

SUPERB GALAXY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SARJIVAN KUMAR GARG vs COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 770

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court granted a petitioner two months’ time to file a reply to a Goods and Services Tax (GST) adjudication order that the Court observed was non-speaking and cryptic in nature.

The Court left open the broader challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications, making it subject to the outcome of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.) and a related matter in the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 (Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.)

Where Possible ’Clause Doesn’t Justify Unreasonable GST Adjudication Delay, One-Year Limit Must Be Respected: Patna HC

Karanveer Singh Yadav Enterprises Private Limited vs The Union of India CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 771

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court ruled that the phrase “where it is possible to do so” in Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, places a duty on tax authorities to conclude proceedings within one year unless there are justifiable reasons, which were absent in this case.

The court found that the unexplained delay rendered the proceedings procedurally defective. It allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order and all related tax demands.

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