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 17th May 2025 – 24th May 2025)
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS vs M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 169
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that the businesses can rectify GST(Goods and Services Tax) returns even after prescribed due dates observing that human mistakes are normal. It has dismissed the petition filed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ).
Rejecting the CBIC’s plea, the court held that there was no revenue loss in allowing such rectifications and thus saw no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which it found to be “just and fair.” The CBIC has been directed to re-examine the provisions and timelines currently in place for correcting bonafide errors in GST filings.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs M/S GIRISH PRAVINBHAI RATHOD (JAY AMBEY) & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 170
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Gujarat High Court decision on the classification of ‘fusible interlining cloth’ under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tariff, thereby affirming that such fabric does not fall under Heading 5903.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP on two grounds: (i) a 225-day delay in filing the petition that was not satisfactorily explained, and (ii) lack of merit in the challenge to the High Court’s ruling.
M/S PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 171
The Supreme Court has provided a best ending to the 23-year old customs dispute with regards to the refusal of the customs department to refund the duty which was recovered via bank guarantee.
Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the refund of customs duty amounts recovered by coercive encashment of bank guarantees. It overturned the 2016 judgment of the Gujarat High Court that had denied Patanjali Foods’ ( former Ruchi Soya) refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.
Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. vs M/s. Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 172
The Supreme Court has slammed the brakes on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department’s last-ditch attempt to reopen the landmark Safari Retreats ruling, dismissing the Centre’s review petition and leaving intact developers’ right to claim input-tax credit (ITC) on the construction cost of commercial properties that are leased out.
Shital Fibers Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 173
The Supreme Court held that Section 80-IA (9) of the Income Tax Act does not alter the computation of deductions under other provisions and further ruled that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.
The court held that assesses do not have to subtract the Section 80-IA deduction before calculating the Section 80-HHC deduction, i.e., both the deductions can be calculated separately.
STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER vs ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 174
In a ruling against Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. And Ors, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and affirmed the state’s power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”
The bench explained that there is no constitutional overlap between central and state levies because the service tax levied by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not clash with state entertainment taxes.
M/S. SRIBA NIRMAN COMPANY vs THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 175
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by a construction company confirming the ruling of Andhra High Court upholding the penalty imposed for non-filing and non-payment of Goods and Services Tax Returns ( GSTR ). It confirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling confirming the penalty imposed by the department.
The apex court found nothing to interfere with the Andhra High Court, thus upheld its ruling and confirmed the penalty for non-filing of GST returns and its Non-payment.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR vs K-9 ENTERPRISES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 176
The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision which ordered to unblock Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ) as blocking did not provide mandated pre-decisional hearing under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Rule 86A.
Shashi Ranjan Constructions Private Limited company vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 772
In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld the imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on construction services rendered under a development agreement, holding that no transfer of land ownership occurred through such an agreement.
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that all essential elements for the levy of GST, taxable event, person liable, rate, and value, were present. The court also found no grounds to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly since statutory appeal mechanisms were available to the petitioner. No costs were awarded.
A.Uthayakumar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 773
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order transferring the income tax assessment from Theni to the Central Circle of the Income Tax Department in Kochi. The Court found that the transfer was in line with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) guidelines and arose from a search action which led to the seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs from the petitioner in the State of Kerala.
The writ petition was dismissed on 03.03.2025, with no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed
TANISHKA STEEL vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 774
The Delhi High Court,set aside the order after the petitioner missed the Goods and Service Tax(GST) show cause notice uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab due to a visibility issue, and directed the authority to grant a fresh opportunity to file a reply and be heard.
The Court clarified that the validity of the notifications challenged by the petitioner was left open and would depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in S.L.P No. 4240/2025. All rights and remedies of the parties were also kept open.
Shashi Galvanising Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 775
The Patna High Court dismissed a service tax challenge , holding that pre-consultation of Show cause notice (SCN) was not mandatory due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns for the period April 2015 to March 2017.
The petition was dismissed. The petitioner was allowed to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and the tribunal was requested to condone any delay caused by this litigation.
TVL.PVK Constructions vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 776
In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside GST demand orders issued against TVL. PVK Constructions after finding that the tax authorities had passed the order without considering the taxpayer’s request for adjournment. The petitioner, TVL. PVK Constructions, represented by its proprietor Perumal Vijayakumar, had challenged the demand order dated 23.08.2024 and the subsequent rejection of the rectification application dated 13.01.2025, both issued by the State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection), Trichy Division.
Kuddus Ali, Proprietor of M/s. Kuddus Ali Construction vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 777
The Calcutta High Court held that once the self-assessed tax as per Section 37 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act is included in the return furnished under Section 39, the provisions of GST Section 75(12) cannot be invoked for recovery.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury rejected the respondents’ argument that the absence of a show cause notice was not fatal due to the taxpayer’s “admission” in response to ASMT-10. It held that any recovery under the Act must be preceded by due process, including issuance of a notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially where the tax has been duly included in the return under Section 39.
Pankaj Rai a proprietorship vs The Union of India through the Ministry of Finance CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 778
The High Court of Patna,allowed the writ application and set aside the tax demand and penalty due to an unexplained two-year delay by the tax authorities in service tax proceedings.
It also noted with concern that the case was left pending with no action for over two years. The Court asked the Chief Commissioner of CGST and Respondent No.2 to look into the delay and decide what action to take. In short,the writ application was allowed.
In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that claiming input tax credit ( ITC ) under the GST (Goods and Services Tax ) Act without any actual supply of goods or services especially from non-existent firms and squarely falls within the ambit of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench concluded that “In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition bypassing the availability of alternative remedy. The alternative prayer made for exempting the mandatory deposit, cannot be countenanced, which prayer is contrary to the statute.”
DGGI Vs Het Ram Sharma CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 780
The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, allowed metals entrepreneur Het Ram Sharma to anticipatory bail in an alleged ₹75 crore fake input-tax-credit (ITC) racket, observing that the prosecution had shown no “extraordinary circumstance” to justify custodial interrogation.
Anticipatory bail was therefore granted on a ₹2,00,000 bond with a like surety from a blood relative, subject to conditions that he appear when summoned, remain in India, preserve six months of mobile data and abstain from tampering with evidence. The order expressly disclaimed any opinion on merits.
M/S MICROSOFT LICENSING GP vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 781
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court revived the Customs Department’s appeals before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), granting relief to Microsoft Licensing GP by directing the tribunal to reconsider the cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the authority of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) under the Customs Act, 1962.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Delhi High Court directed that the Customs department’s appeals be restored before the CESTAT for a revised decision based on their merits.
Thirumalai Ramesh S vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 782
In a recent order, the Madras High Court directed a taxpayer to file a fresh representation before the Income Tax Officer ( ITO ) seeking an income tax refund of Rs. 3 lakhs for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noting the limited nature of relief sought and without delving into the merits of the case, the Court accepted the department’s submission.
Thangaraju vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 783
In an important ruling, the Madras High Court has ruled that income tax returns ( ITR ) must be filed when you’re withdrawing a high value even while acting as a power of attorney ( POA ) holder. It upheld the income tax demand notice issued against the practising Advocate who acted as a POA and withdrew a high value amount.
Dismissing the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice dated 19.02.2025 within 30 days.
Ranjit V Srivatsaa vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 784
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has held that recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 are automatically stayed when an assessee deposits 20% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing an appeal.
The High Court accordingly quashed the impugned notice and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three weeks. It further ordered the tax department to defer recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided.
Radhamani vs The Income Tax Officer (HQ) (PR) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 785
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking a refund of income tax deducted from her deceased husband’s salary, along with 6% interest.
The bench directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent. Upon receipt, the respondent was instructed to forward the same to the concerned authority, who would then be required to consider and decide on the request within a period of six weeks.
M/S.M.S.DISTRIBUTORS vs THE OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 786
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the absence of specific mention of date and time for personal hearing in two successive show cause notices ( SCNs ) issued four months apart.
The Court also clarified that since the petitioner had paid more than the required 10% of the disputed tax, they are entitled to deduct the excess amount from future payments. The writ petition was thus allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
MANISH KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 787
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to an accused involved in an alleged bogus income tax refund scam, observing that there exists no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).
The court stated that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be entitled to interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating or Arresting Officer.
Sohanlal Jain Ramesh vs The Assessment Unit CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 788
The Madras High Court has granted relief to a taxpayer whose authorised representative was hospitalised and unable to respond to income tax notices.
The Court set aside the order dated March 1, 2025, and remanded the matter to the department for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within two weeks from the date the portal is reopened.
LANDCRAFT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 789
The Delhi High Court in its recent case held that the period of limitation as per section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 commenced with date on which documents were submitted.
The court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings commenced pursuant to the impugned notice are set aside. It is also clarified that, in the event, any assessment order has been passed after filing of this petition in respect of AY 2015-16 pursuant to the impugned notice, the same would also stand quashed.
IDEMIA IDENTITY AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 790
The Delhi High Court in a recent case has set aside the Income Tax notice issued demanding management fee paid to oversea company being violative of section 149 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia found that this does not fall within the exception to Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act.
KOLKATA SOUTH vs M/S. DIAMOND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 791
The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit. It was viewed that Section 3 of the Act provides for levy and collection as a cess for the purpose of Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982, a duty of excise on all sugar produced by any sugar factory in India.
The bench rejected the revenue’s appeal, concurring with the Tribunal that duty payments made under the Sugar Cess Act of 1982 could be claimed as Cenvat Credit.
M/s. Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 792
The Calcutta High Court has held that no deduction from electronic cash/credit ledger can be made by the department where the pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 112(8) of the Central/State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has already been deposited.
The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that on dismissal of appeal, the petitioners intimated the department of their intention to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and also deposited 10 percent of the tax liability aggregating to Rs. 35,316 and the same can be corroborated from the copy of electronic liability ledger.
M/S RESFEBER INFOSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 793
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) cannot file a criminal complaint under Section 454(8) of the Companies Act while the company’s statutory appeal against the penalty order is still pending. The Court found such a complaint to be premature and quashed the proceedings initiated by the ROC.
The court quashed the criminal complaints and all related proceedings but clarified that the ROC is free to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted, once the appeal is decided. The criminal miscellaneous cases were accordingly allowed.
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs M/S ELECTRO STEEL CASTING LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 794
The High Court of Calcutta set aside the adjudicating authority’s (AA) order for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act,1994 without any evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the assessee.
The court found no proof that the assessee willfully suppressed facts or tried to evade tax. So, it set aside the entire order by the authority and agreed with the tribunal’s decision.
M/s.M and C Property Development Private Limited vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 795
The High Court of Madras,ruled that seized documents from group entities justified the transfer of assessment cases under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,1961 for a coordinated investigation, as the cases needed to be centralized for effective and joint assessment.
The division bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice C.Saravanan noted that documents were seized from the petitioner’s premises by the Kolkata Investigation Wing, which were relevant to the assessment.
M/S HAMFER INDIA TRADING vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 796
The High Court of Delhi directed the adjudicating authority (AA) to rectify its order imposing differential duty on tempered glass despite prior payments made by the petitioner.
The Division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the adjudicating authority (AA) needed to review the amounts imposed and correct the impugned order.
Dhanarajan Narayansamy vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 797
The High Court of Madras, addressing the hardship caused by the attachment of a senior citizen’s pension account, allowed limited relief by permitting monthly withdrawals of ₹2 lakh and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months.
A single member bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner’s pension account had been attached by the department and that he was facing hardship as a senior citizen due to this.
GI.Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 798
The Madras High Court held that the assessee’s claimed confusion over two show cause notices, one from a faceless officer and another from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) who clearly referenced the first, was unfounded and granted two weeks to file a reply while directing a fourteen day notice for personal hearing before finalizing the matter.
CHAKSHU GARG vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 799
The High Court of Delhi, directed a UAE resident to pay redemption and storage fees for three undeclared iPhone devices seized at the airport, while ordering the release of his gold jewelry without any storage charges.
The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the gold items to be released without storage charges. For the iPhones, the petitioner was directed to pay both the redemption fee and storage charges.
AIR CUSTOMS vs SANDEEP & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 800
The Delhi High Court, upheld bail granted in a gold smuggling case, citing no fresh grounds to cancel the order.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the respondent was caught with 3 kg of smuggled gold worth about ₹85 lakhs, with Customs Duty evasion of ₹35 lakhs.
Mahalakshmi Mines vs Deputy Commercial (ST)(GST)(Appeal) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 801
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 30-day delay in filing GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeals by a taxpayer, holding that the petitioner’s unawareness of the ex parte assessment orders appeared genuine on a condition of payment of 5% additional pre-deposit.
The Court further directed the appellate authority to admit the appeals on record upon the petitioner’s payment of the additional 5% and to dispose of the same on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
M/s.Star Brand Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner GST and CE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 802
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court allowed a taxpayer to contest a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) demand order, which was confirmed on grounds that the GST consultant failed to provide a proper reply with evidence.
The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, followed by filing a comprehensive reply along with relevant documents within two weeks thereafter. The respondent department was directed to provide a clear 14-day notice for personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits.
M/S NEXUS SHANTINIKETAN RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 803
The Karnataka High Court recently granted relief to Nexus Shantiniketan Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Nexus), restraining the Revenue from initiating coercive recovery steps in connection with a ₹9.5 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand, while advising the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy available under law.
Furthermore, the Karnataka High Court observed that it was necessary to allow the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy to attain the ends of justice and maintained the interim protection against coercive recovery measures for a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.
Vinplex India Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 804
In the matter of income tax refund that was sanctioned with interest but paid without it, the Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and dispose of the taxpayer’s representation regarding the unpaid interest.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 11.03.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
Karunanathan vs The Secretary to Government of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 805
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an elderly couple seeking access to funds held in a frozen savings account, citing the absence of verified proof regarding their mental competence.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, after examining the medical documents and submissions, held that the bank’s actions were appropriate and found no illegality in the impugned communication.
Neeraj Saluja vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 806
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Neeraj Saluja, a director of SEL Textiles Limited, in connection with a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court cited prolonged incarceration, lack of trial progress, and a judicial stay on further proceedings arising from the predicate offence as key grounds for granting relief.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat, delivering the judgment, ordered Saluja’s release on bail with stringent conditions, including a Rs. 10 lakh bond with three sureties, surrender of passport, and restriction on disposal of assets mentioned in the ECIR. The Court underlined that these measures would ensure Saluja’s presence at trial without infringing on his fundamental rights.
M/S NHDPL SOUTH PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION BANK OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 807
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Banking Ombudsman that rejected a complaint for invocation of bank guarantees through email, holding that such electronic communication satisfies the requirement of a written notice under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Quashing the Banking Ombudsman’s order dated 21 December 2020, the court directed that the complaint be reconsidered in light of the legal recognition of electronic communication, and noted that denying invocation solely due to lack of physical notice despite timely emails was unjustifiable. The petition was accordingly allowed.
SHIVALIK HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 808
The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against the Goods and Service Tax(GST) demand on housekeeping services provided to government educational institutions, stating the authority must decide on the pre-deposit.
The division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy by 10th July 2025, along with an application for determining the pre-deposit, which was to be considered in accordance with law.
T.Thandapani Nattu Marunthu Kadai vs The Superintendent Of Gst CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 809
The Madras High Court has restored the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration of a petitioner whose registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns during the COVID-19 pandemic conditionally.
The Court clarified that these dues must be paid in cash and not adjusted against any unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). Additionally, any ITC claim must be scrutinized and approved by the competent authority before it can be utilized.
M/s.Regma Ceramics Limited vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 810
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing after the issuance of a second corrigendum that enhanced the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) amount.
The court found that the enhanced demand post-second corrigendum required a fresh hearing, which had not been granted. The bench citing principles of natural justice, observed that any demand against a taxpayer must be preceded by a fair hearing.
Sruthi Raj vs The Commissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 811
The Madras High Court has held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) erred in dismissing an appeal as time-barred without considering the fact that the Appellate Authority ( AA )’s order was returned undelivered.
The court observed that there is no evidence to refute the appellant’s version and finding merit in the plea, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the delay, if any, deserved to be condoned.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs LATA GOEL CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 812
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the income-tax department’s appeal, affirming an ITAT order that granted the taxpayer a ₹90-crore exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act. A bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia ruled that different floors of a single building cannot be counted as separate “residential houses” for denying the “rollover” relief from capital gains taxation under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act.
Power Engineering (India) Private Ltd. vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 813
The Bombay High Court in a recent case, quashed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) refund recovery in absence of issuance of Valid show cause notice (SCN) and due to no granting of hearing opportunity.
The High Court struck down the July 10, 2024, recovery decision due to a procedural error, but it did not address the fundamental legal issues raised by Rule 96(10). If required, the Court permitted the Revenue to start new procedures, but only under strict adherence to Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, guaranteeing due process.
UPENDRA MAHATO vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 814
The Calcutta High Court, in its recent case, has quashed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) order rejecting rectification applications even without providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee found that the appellant did not have adequate opportunity to put forth the submissions before the authority. The court remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law..
M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vs Union of India and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 815
In a recent case, the Uttarakhand High Court held that no proceedings can be invoked under the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017, after the same was omitted on 8th October, 2024 without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceeding.
The Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra viewed that the said provision of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 being omitted unconditionally, without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceedings, all actions from the date of such omission of the rule must stop.
M/S Xestion Advisor Private Limited Additional Commissioner Grade II and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 816
The Allahabad High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) assessment order passed without issuance of notice under section 46 of the GST Act, 2017.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held that the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.
M/S Maa Kama khya Trader vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 817
The Allahabad High court in a recent case held that Goods and Service Tax Authority (GST) Authority cannot allege discrepancy after goods were verified in MOV – 04.
A single bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”
R.Vijayan vs The Commercial Tax Officer O/o. Commercial Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 818
The Madras High Court has dismissed a review petition appeared by a party-in-person, who sought compensation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing delay and alleged false information provided by the Public Information Officer of the Commercial Tax Department.
The Division Bench comprising Justices R. Suresh Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, held that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage.
Tvl Sakthi Murugan Lorry Service vs The Deputy State Tax Officer -1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 819
The Madras High Court has criticised the mechanical approach adopted by the tax authorities in serving GST notices and set aside an assessment order passed against a lorry service firm, citing failure to ensure effective delivery and denial of a fair hearing.
Justice N. Mala, in her order dated 8 May 2025, observed that the act of repeatedly uploading notices to the GST portal without verifying receipt by the taxpayer amounted to mechanical compliance, defeating the purpose of issuing a show-cause notice. The Court held that when a taxpayer fails to respond to notices uploaded online, the officer should have exercised due diligence by resorting to other methods of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD).
Ramasamy HUF vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 820
The Madras High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to accept the declaration filed by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024, and issue Form-2, despite an earlier rejection based on a technical ground. The Court held that once the appeal had been revived by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the HUF was entitled to avail of the scheme as the appeal was pending as on the relevant date.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, deciding the case on 23 April 2025, held that in view of the ITAT’s order reviving the appeal, and in light of Section 4(6) of the DTVSV Act, 2020, all proceedings and claims stood restored and the petitioner was therefore entitled to avail of the scheme. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner to accept Form-1 and issue Form-2 by 28 April 2025, taking note of the impending expiry of the deadline.
Prithvi Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 821
The Bombay High Court recently laid down the strict nuances of law permitting the reopening of income tax reassessment, clarifying that no income tax assessment can be sustained beyond a period of four years without there being an explicit failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.
The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain at the very outset noted that the first proviso to Section 147 places a bar on an assessment order passed under Section 143(3), mandating that any case may be reopened after four years only upon failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
Sarulatha Mani Mudaliyar vs The Tax Recovery Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 822
The Madras High Court has held that the rights of secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act take precedence over tax claims by revenue authorities, and directed the Sub-Registrar at Puducherry to register a sale certificate issued by a secured creditor in favour of the petitioner. The order came in a writ petition filed by Sarulatha Mani Mudaliyar, who had purchased the mortgaged property through an auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act by JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, delivering the judgment on 23 April 2025, held that the bank’s right to recover dues under the SARFAESI Act was unaffected by subsequent tax department attachments. The Court observed that the sale had been conducted lawfully and the purchaser’s rights could not be stalled due to revenue claims lacking priority.
Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department & Anr CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 823
In a sharp rebuke to a trial court, the Bombay High Court has set aside a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in an alleged 2019 tax-evasion case, describing the lower-court order as “mechanical” and “cryptic.” The Vacation bench of Justice Advait Sethna ruled on 16 May that the magistrate had acted “contrary to law” when he ordered Rampal’s arrest under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, which punishes wilful attempts to evade tax, penalty or interest.
M/s.KLP Projects Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 824
The Madras High Court has held that the limitation period for issuing notices under section 153C to a third party commences from the date when materials are seized or requisitioned, not from the date of the search.
The court observed that the notice issued on 30.12.2024 was within the permissible time frame. The court further observed that even if settlement arrived at IBS settlement the department can initiate new proceedings based on fresh evidence. The court found the petitioner’s cited judgments inapplicable to the facts of the case.
Dhanapal Eswari vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 825
The Madras High Court has partly allowed a writ appeal filed by a gas cylinder and stove distributor, setting aside the condition imposed by a Single Judge to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount.
The court directed the department to pass a final order within four weeks from the receipt of the court’s order, after hearing the parties and adhering to principles of natural justice. The writ appeal was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 826
The Madras High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to consider and dispose of a representation submitted by the petitioner for a pending tax refund of Rs. 92 lakh along with applicable interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
The court directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 07.08.2024 on its own merits and in accordance with the law, within 12 weeks from the receipt of the court’s order.
Jayar Enterprises vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 827
The Madras High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to entertain an appeal filed by the petitioner subject to the payment of the balance admitted Income tax amount of Rs. 28,76,662 in six equated monthly installments citing financial constraints.
The court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal, subject to the petitioner adhering to the prescribed payment schedule. The court emphasized that the appeal should be considered on its merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing.
G.P. Tronics Private Limited & anr. vs State of West Bengal & ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 828
The Calcutta High Court today granted relief to G.P. Tronics Private Limited and its co-petitioner by permitting them to file an appeal against an order passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, even though they failed to respond to a show-cause notice. The bench held that disputed factual issues must be addressed through statutory appeal rather than writ jurisdiction.
Justice Basu Chowdhury observed that the writ petition was filed on 18 October 2024—over a month after the impugned order—and that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay; in his view, it would be imprudent for the High Court to entertain the petition when an appeal lay under the GST framework.
Sai Kiran Clearing Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 829
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the principles of natural justice, quashing an income tax reassessment order that was passed by the department before the deadline that had been allotted to the petitioner to file their reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
The division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the impugned order was passed without considering the Petitioner’s response, despite the response being within the prescribed deadline, thus being violative of the principles of natural justice.
Ashok Kumar Saha vs Union of India & ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 830
A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, disposed of a petition by remitting an ex parte appellate order to the first appellate authority.
Justice Basu Chowdhury observed that the GST framework envisages a multi-tiered adjudicatory process and noted that “the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted,” making a writ petition less appropriate but underscoring the need for a proper appellate hearing.
CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 831
In an important order, the Delhi High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Department for an inordinate delay of over 12 years in disposing of Casio India’s income tax appeal, even as the department proceeded to recovered an amount of ₹3.56 crore during the pendency of the appeal by adjusting the refund amount of the subsequent years.
The court found merit in Casio’s Grievance. The Division Bench observed that there had been “inordinate delay” in addressing the appeal. The Court, while refraining from issuing a writ of certiorari, directed the concerned appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal within 12 weeks from the date of the order, after giving Casio an opportunity of being heard. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GARG ACRYLIC LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 832
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the income tax department on the ground that the tax effect involved was below the prescribed monetary threshold of ₹2 crore, and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to justify the appeal.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that there was no indication of the assessee having received any cash back or indulging in accommodation entries, an essential ingredient to qualify for the exception under the CBDT circular. Therefore, the Revenue’s claim that the case involved exceptional circumstances warranting an appeal, despite the low tax effect, was found to be without merit.
DAMANPREET SINGH(PROP.M/S ACE ENTERPRISES) vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 833
The Delhi High Court recently referred to the principles of natural justice while setting aside a sales tax adjudication order on grounds that the assessing authority had failed to duly consider the petitioner’s reply and failed to grant them an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.
The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SUJATHA REVIKUMAR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 834
In a recent ruling the Kerala High Court has held that non-serving of a copy of the draft assessment order to a person who is not an “eligible assessee” under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will not vitiate the assessment order.
The division bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S are inclined to presume that the assessees in those cases were eligible assessees, since the statutory provisions clearly bring out a distinction between the two. The court allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge.
SULENDER SHAH AND ANR vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 835
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere in ongoing adjudication proceedings initiated by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department against a Chartered Accountant and co-petitioner, a trader for engaging in the dealings with bogus firms.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and directed that the adjudication proceedings in respect of the Show Cause Notice continue in accordance with law.
M/S U.S Metal Products vs State Of U P And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 836
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that minor clerical errors such as a one or two-digit mismatch in the GST invoice or on the GST e-way bill cannot be the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.
The Court quashed the penalty orders dated 16.04.2022 and 19.12.2021 and held that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were not sustainable in law. It also directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner in this regard must be refunded in accordance with the law.
M/s Hundal Traders vs State of U.P. and another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 837
The Allahabad High Court has sought a detailed clarification from the State GST Department in a case where initiation of penalty proceedings under the Section 129 of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) for alleged violation of Rule 86B of the GST Rule is challenged.
The court observed the gaps in the counter affidavit. The Division Bench of Justices Kshitij Shailendra and Arun Bansali directed the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit specifically addressing the concerns raised, particularly regarding the STO’s jurisdiction under the CGST/IGST framework and the applicability of Rule 86B to the case at hand.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SIS LIVE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 838
In a ruling clarifying the interpretation of CBDT ( Central Board of Direct Taxes ) circulars governing income tax appeals, the Delhi High Court has ruled that losses assessed in previous assessment years (AYs) and disallowed for carry-forward cannot be included while computing the “tax effect” for the purpose of determining the maintainability of an appeal.
M/S JMS MINING PVT LTD. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 839
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to entertain writ petitions contesting the denial of private warehouse license applications on availability of remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.
The court ruled that the High Court should not have granted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution against the Assessment Order by granting the statutory remedy of appeal in a tax dispute when such a remedy is available. One law that offers a sufficient and effective remedy is the Customs Act of 1962. As a result, we see no justification for interfering with the contested order under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
M/S WESTAN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 840
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has permitted the assessee to reply to the show cause notice (SCN) demanding Customs duty on various goods imported.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the Adjudicating Authority shall comprehensively adjudicate the matter in respect of all the bills of entry and pass one comprehensive order.
M/S MASCON vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 841
The Delhi High Court has set aside the show cause notice (SCN) passed by Sale Tax officer which was without considering the challenge made by Assessee against a sales tax notification.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta finding that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner, remanded the matter back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.
Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Bagaria vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 842
The Calcutta High Court has held that a mere change in the transportation route or interception of a vehicle at a location not aligned with the route declared in the e-way bill is not sufficient to invoke proceedings under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( WB GST Act ) unless it is clearly established that there was an intention to evade tax.
The bench quashed the penalty orders dated May 22, 2024 and January 16, 2025, and allowed the writ petition. It directed the authorities to refund the penalty amount already deposited by the petitioner within three weeks upon receipt of the order and the refund application.
GAUTAM WALIA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 843
The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Processing Centre ( CPC ) of the Income Tax Department cannot repeatedly rectify and re-rectify intimations issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench set aside the rectification order dated 05.03.2025 and remanded the matter to the ACIT to reconsider the issue afresh. The ACIT has been directed to examine whether a re-rectification is legally sustainable after the CPC had already issued a favourable rectification order.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs LOREAL SA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 844
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that a trial court becomes functus officio once a case is finally decided, so it cannot initiate fresh or miscellaneous proceedings on the same matter. The ruling came in a dispute involving L’Oréal SA, where the trial court had continued to issue directions even after passing a final judgment and decree.
The court held that the trial court’s actions in initiating MISC DJ/3620/2024 and issuing further directions were without authority and amounted to judicial overreach.
Jan Mohammad Wani vs UT of J&K and Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 845
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the retrospective cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of a petitioner, directing the competent authority to restore his GST number upon receipt of a formal application and completion of requisite formalities.
In a further stipulation, the petitioner must file any outstanding GST returns and deposit the taxes due, along with interest and penalty, within two weeks of the restoration of his registration. The Court made clear that failure to comply within the stipulated time would render the order inoperative.
ST. ANTONY TRADING AND TRANSPORT PVT. LIMITED vs JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 846
In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has set aside the order passed under section 107(12) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST), 2017 without stating points for determination and reasons for decision. The single bench set aside the order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after granting a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Tvl.N.V.R. Sons vs .Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 847
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the validity of a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) notification issued under Section 168A of the Central GST Act and a corresponding Government Order (Memorandum) issued, dismissing a writ petition.
It was also held by the court that the issuance of the notifications was in line with the powers conferred under the respective GST enactments. It observed that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction and that the notifications were neither arbitrary nor in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
M/S COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR INDIA SOURCING PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 848
In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court directed the Revenue Department to refund the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with applicable interest to Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. The refund must be processed within a period of three months. The court quashed prior orders issued by the department that had classified the services exported by the petitioner as “intermediary services” under the GST framework.
M/S NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI SOUTH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 849
The Delhi High Court has asked the Joint secretaries of the Ministry of Urban Development ( MoUD ) and the Ministry of Finance to convene a meeting with respect to the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand issued by Directorate General of GST Intelligence ( DGGI ) on ESCROW Funds.
The court took into consideration the complexity of the issue and the fact that it involved inter-ministerial financial arrangements, it directed both ministries to meet and determine whether the GST department should continue to press the demand or if the matter should be resolved administratively.
BANSON ENTERPRISES & ANR. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 850
The Delhi High Court has held that the fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) regime, without any actual supply of goods or services, fundamentally violates the purpose and integrity of the ITC facility.
The high court concluded that no violation of natural justice had occurred, as the petitioner had been provided with a fair opportunity to respond and be heard. As such, the petition under Article 226 was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate GST appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 851
The Calcutta High Court has held that notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be challenged through writ petition after the final assessment order.
On the ground of non-supply of essential documents,the bench found that the petitioner has acknowledged to have received the copy of the excel sheet though the petitioner claims that some other documents were necessary for it to give appropriate response.
M/S WATER INDIA PVT LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 852
In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed two show cause notices issued to Waters India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the services rendered to its foreign affiliate, Waters Ges.m.b.H. (Austria), qualify as export of services and do not fall within the scope of intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017. The court found that these services were performed on a principal-to-principal basis and without any facilitation between third parties.
M/S ICON FIBRES FABRICS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 853
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified the implications of the Supreme Court’s Canon India judgment, holding that DRI officers qualify as ‘proper officers’ under the Customs Act. It also ruled that any penalty imposed without a proper hearing must be referred back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) for adjudication.
Mayasheel Retail India Limited Erstwhile Gstin vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Commercial Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 854
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated the judicial principle that while writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are legally maintainable even in the presence of an alternate remedy under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ), they must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant the court’s discretionary intervention.
The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable, however cannot be entertained as petitioner failed to make out any such exceptional circumstance. Since the CGST Act provides a specific remedy under Section 107, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction should not become a substitute for statutory appellate procedures.
SRI GANPATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI WEST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 855
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court directed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) adjudicating authority to reconsider two Orders-in-Original ( OIO ) issued from two Show Cause Notices ( SCNs) against an exporter.
The bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed that both orders be reconsidered solely concerning Sri Ganpati Exports. A personal hearing is to be granted, and corrected orders must be issued within 30 days.
Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 856
A significant ruling was recently passed by the Calcutta High Court, directing the Revenue to reconsider its earlier decision which sanctioned a Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund into the Electronic Credit Ledger of a company whose business operations had ceased, and whose registration had been cancelled.
Justice Chowdhury instructed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider and rectify this contradiction, granting a period of six weeks to make a new determination after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
