Nittu vs State ofHimachal Pradesh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2501

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dealt with a bail plea under the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985, concerning the conscious possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. The legal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could be granted regular bail after being arrested for possession of 3.670 kilograms of charas, which constitutes a commercial quantity under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Court examined the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which sets stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the bail plea, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37: proving that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty and that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court observed that all occupants of a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered are deemed to be in conscious possession. It further held that delay in trial cannot be a sole ground for bail when the special provisions of the NDPS Act apply. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, upholding the strict framework for commercial quantity offences under the NDPS Act.

PING PONG GLOBALLIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTORSIDDHARTHA JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGHJOINT SECRETARY& ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2502

The Delhi High Court addressed a case concerning Goods and Services Tax (GST), where the petitioner, Ping Pong Global, sought to file a delayed appeal against a GST demand order of Rs. 75,78,297 for the financial year 2019-20. The legal issue revolved around whether a delay in filing an appeal could be condoned due to bonafide reasons, including the medical condition of the company’s director, and whether Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, extending adjudication time limits, affected the appeal process. The matter also intersected with constitutional and statutory questions pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain granted relief by allowing the company to file a delayed appeal after making the necessary pre-deposit, provided it is submitted by January 10, 2026. The Court held that the lapse was bonafide, noting the director’s serious medical condition, and clarified that the appeal would be adjudicated on merits, with its final outcome subject to the Supreme Court’s decision on the related notification. The Court emphasized that this order did not address the validity of the notification itself but merely allowed the petitioner a second opportunity to be heard.

Korfex IndustriesPrivate Limited vs State Of Rajasthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2503

The Rajasthan High Court dealt with a writ petition filed by Korfex Industries Pvt. Ltd. concerning an alleged ₹100 crore fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) chain under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The legal issues involved the legality of detention under MOV‑02, the inspection and movement of goods under Sections 68, 129, and 130 of the GST Act, and whether procedural lapses could justify relief in the face of fraudulent claims.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the petitioner’s involvement in a larger sham ITC scheme barred it from seeking discretionary relief, citing the equity principle “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands”. While procedural lapses by authorities were noted, the Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the petitioner and directed GST authorities to continue proceedings under Section 130, emphasizing that fraudulent practices cannot be excused even if technical irregularities occur.

SANJEEV KRISHAN SHARMAvs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2504

The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Sanjeev Krishan Sharma, a guarantor and former director of M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd., challenging recovery actions by Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank. The legal issues involved the petitioner’s attempt to obtain discharge from his personal guarantee, release of mortgaged property, and a stay on personal insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), despite ongoing proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Court examined whether the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked when efficacious statutory remedies existed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act), SARFAESI Act, and IBC.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the specific statutory remedies available and that a writ petition cannot be used to bypass specialized forums or statutory procedures. Characterizing the filing as a “blatant abuse of process,” the Court imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh, directing the amount to be deposited with the AIIMS Poor Patients’ Fund, and emphasized that extraordinary remedies under Article 226 must not circumvent alternative legal channels.

VINAYAK INTERNATIONALHOUSEWARES P LTD vs UNION OF INDIA &ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2505

The Delhi High Court addressed petitions filed by exporters, including Vinayak International Housewares Pvt. Ltd., Ashish Foils Pvt. Ltd., and Mayedass International, challenging the validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The legal issue concerned whether the rule, which restricted exporters from claiming IGST refunds if certain exemptions or concessional notifications were availed, was ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, and whether the omission of Rule 96(10) applied only prospectively or also to pending proceedings, including show cause notices, orders, and appeals.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the omission of Rule 96(10) applied to all pending proceedings, as it was deleted without any saving clause by Notification No. 20/2024 dated 8 October 2024. the Court quashed all show cause notices, orders, and appeals arising under the deleted rule. The bench clarified that exporters are entitled to claim IGST refunds without being restricted by Rule 96(10), which was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

NEWTON MUTHURI KIMANIvs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2506

The Bombay High Court examined constitutional and procedural issues concerning the applicant’s arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The central legal question was whether the detention of a Kenyan national by immigration authorities at Delhi Airport, pursuant to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued at the behest of the Enforcement Directorate, would count toward the 24-hour limit mandated under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). If so counted, the subsequent delay in producing him before a magistrate would render the arrest illegal.

The bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes held that the arrest was illegal and vitiated in law. The Court ruled that custody begins when an individual’s liberty is first curtailed at the direction of the investigating agency, even if under immigration authorities. Since the applicant was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his initial detention, the Court held that the ED had violated Article 22 and Section 57 CrPC. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Special Court’s order denying bail and granted the applicant bail, subject to stringent conditions such as surrendering his passport, furnishing a bond and surety, and regularly reporting to the ED.

M/S Vimlesh KumarContractor vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2507

The Allahabad High Court examined a jurisdictional issue under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, specifically involving proceedings initiated under Section 73 for the financial year 2018–19. The core legal question was whether GST authorities could levy tax, interest, or penalty on payments received after July 1, 2017, when the underlying works contracts had been executed prior to the GST regime and were already subjected to Value Added Tax (VAT) under the then-existing laws.

The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that the GST authorities had acted without jurisdiction in invoking Section 73 for transactions belonging entirely to the VAT regime. The Court found that the contracts were executed before GST implementation and the payments were already subjected to VAT, and therefore the mismatch between GSTR-3B and Form 26AS could not form the basis of a GST demand. Emphasizing that no provision of the CGST Act empowered authorities to impose GST on pre-GST work merely because payment was received later, the Bench quashed the impugned orders. The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded with interest, to be released within one month of submission of the certified order.

SHRI. SIDRAM BHUTHAPPAHIREKURABAR vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITSSECRETARY " CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2508

The Karnataka High Court examined a service tax valuation dispute arising under the Finance Act, 1994, specifically concerning the levy of service tax on labour charges for the period April 2015 to June 2017. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the department had erred in imposing service tax on the entire value of labour charges without applying the statutory apportionment mechanism prescribed under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioner relied heavily on the 2024 coordinate bench judgment in Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. That decision required that similar valuation disputes be re-examined from the show cause notice stage, after considering key statutory provisions such as Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, the negative list, relevant exemption notifications, Rule 2(1)(d) regarding liability, and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on limitation. Since the respondents did not dispute the applicability of this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file a fresh reply to the show cause notice, and the authority was directed to reconsider the case in accordance with law while being free to regulate its own procedure and carry the matter to its logical conclusion.

Indu Mahajan andanother vs State of Punjab CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2509

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether the accused were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter arose from allegations that the petitioners had submitted a forged and unsigned rent deed before the GST Department, thereby fabricating tenancy rights over a property to secure GST registration. The Court examined whether the nature of the forgery, the use of false documents before a government authority, and the overall conduct of the accused justified the grant of pre-arrest bail.

The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel examined the FIR, the material collected during the investigation, and the rival submissions. The Court held that the allegations reflected organised deceit, supported by prima facie evidence, and that the petitioners’ conduct “did not inspire confidence.” Justice Goel observed that the unsigned rent deed, unsupported bank transfers, and unreliable ledger entries, coupled with the clear denial by the property owner, justified custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions and refused anticipatory bail, holding that the gravity of the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC warranted a full and unhindered investigation.

Sahil Goyal vs State ofPunjab CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2510

The Punjab & Haryana High Court examined the legal issue of whether an accused was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with a case registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) and 336 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The allegations pertained to a purported GST-related cement supply fraud amounting to ₹48,60,500, involving alleged fabrication of fake invoices and supply of only a fraction of the promised cement bags. The Court was required to determine whether continued custodial detention was warranted despite the investigation having been completed and the challan filed.

The bench of Justice Manisha Batra noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 16.07.2025 and that the police had already filed the charge-sheet, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary. Observing that the allegations were primarily documentary and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration could not be justified when trial would likely take time, the Court held that continued detention served no purpose. Accordingly, Justice Batra allowed the petition and granted regular bail to Sahil Goyal, directing his release upon furnishing requisite bonds, while clarifying that the observations in the order were confined to the bail adjudication and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/oRam Swroop Sharma vs Union Of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2511

The Rajasthan High Court examined the legal question concerning the convertibility of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 72(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in cases involving serious economic offences under the CGST Act and the Customs Act, including an alleged tax evasion of ₹10.65 crores. The fundamental issue before the Court was whether an accused in economic offences or heinous crimes could claim such conversion as a matter of right, particularly in light of conflicting coordinate bench judgments.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted the conflicting views of two coordinate benches on whether NBWs could be converted to bailable warrants in economic offence cases. Observing that the Supreme Court has consistently stressed stricter treatment for economic offences due to their systemic impact, and recognising the judicial dilemma caused by contradictory precedents, the Court held that judicial propriety required reference to a larger forum.

NEMICHAND TETARWAL vsUNION OF INDIA THROUGH INTELLIGENCE OFFICER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DICTORATE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2512

The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) addressed the legal issue of grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in a case involving alleged GST evasion under Sections 132(1)(a), (b), (f), (h), and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, Nemichand Tetarwal, Proprietor of Parveen Motor, had been arrested in connection with an alleged clandestine supply of goods without invoices and issuance of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), leading to a purported tax liability exceeding ₹22.95 crore.

The bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani noted that the charge sheet had already been filed and that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was five years’ imprisonment. Relying on the Supreme Court rulings such as Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India, which emphasized granting bail in cases based primarily on documentary evidence where prolonged pre-trial custody is unwarranted, the Court held that further incarceration of the petitioner was unjustified.

Laxmi Ghosh vs TheState of West Bengal & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2513

The Calcutta High Court examined the legality of an appellate order passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the corresponding provisions of the WBGST Act, 2017. The core legal issue before the Court concerned whether the Appellate Authority had failed to consider the petitioner’s written representation and her claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) validly disclosed in the annual return (GSTR-9) for the financial year 2018-19.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the appellate order suffered from non-application of mind and was legally unsustainable. The Court observed that the Appellate Authority had incorrectly stated that the petitioner made no written representation and had also failed to evaluate the ITC claimed in GSTR-9, despite the settled legal position affirmed in Pioneer Co-operative Car Parking Servicing and Constructions Society Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2025) requiring due consideration of annual return particulars. Finding that the appellate order neither identified the “missing documents” nor explained why the petitioner’s explanation was illogical, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Bidyut Autotech PrivateLimited and another vs The AssistantCommissioner of State Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2514

The Calcutta High Court examined whether the GST authorities were justified in ignoring the petitioners’ GSTR-9 annual return, particularly when the non-disclosure of CESS in GSTR-3B was revenue neutral and the return had been filed before the amended Section 44(2) of the GST Act came into force. The central legal question was whether, under the unamended statutory scheme, a belatedly filed GSTR-9, along with the petitioners’ accumulated ITC of CESS, could be disregarded while confirming substantial tax liability particularly when such non-disclosure did not cause revenue loss.

The single judge bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the appellate authority’s order suffered from non-application of mind and violated the constitutional mandate under Article 265, which prohibits levy or collection of tax without authority of law. It further held that the pre-amendment framework of Section 44(2) did not bar late filing of GSTR-9, and the existence of late fees under Section 47 implied its permissibility.

M/s. Sumitra Mohapatravs The Commissioner CT & GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2515

The Orissa High Court addressed a procedural issue under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, specifically concerning the maintainability of multiple appeals filed against the same adjudication order under Section 107 of the Act. The legal question before the Court was whether the later appeal, rejected as time-barred by the appellate authority, could survive when the earlier appeal had already been restored pursuant to the Court’s order dated 6 November 2023, particularly in light of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax and the mandate under Section 107(13) regarding timely disposal of appeals.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that the second appeal, filed on 5 December 2024, had no legal existence (non est) since the earlier appeal, Appeal No. AD211222009941O, was already alive and pending due to the Court’s earlier revival order. The Bench observed that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the later appeal on limitation without considering that it challenged the same adjudication order already under appeal. The Court therefore set aside the appellate order dated 17 January 2025 and directed that the later appeal be treated as non est.

Punjab & Haryana HC Remands Educational Institutions’ Income Tax Exemption Pleas for Reconsideration after SC Clarification

M/S S.D. EDUCATIONSOCIETY vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2516

The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the legality of orders denying Income Tax exemption to various educational institutions under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which grants exemption to institutions engaged solely in education and not for profit. Nineteen writ petitions, including one filed by S.D. Education Society, Karnal, challenged the rejection orders issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, asserting that the institutions were exclusively imparting education and therefore entitled to exemption.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Jagmohan Bansal and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal held that the issue was already settled by the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 10.05.2016 in a batch of appeals, wherein the apex court had also considered the earlier Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2010). Observing that both parties agreed on the applicability of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Bench set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, directing the authority to pass fresh, reasoned orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court further directed that the petitioners be granted an adequate opportunity of hearing before any fresh decision is made.

Shri Rupak Shil vsUnion of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2518

The Tripura High Court dealt with an issue in a narcotics case concerning whether an accused who appears before a court in response to a summons can be detained, particularly under the stringent framework of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The question centered on the applicability of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates release on bond when an accused voluntarily appears on summons, and whether this principle extends to proceedings before a Special Court under Section 36A of the NDPS Act.

The Single Bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held that the Special Court acted illegally in remanding the accused to custody after he appeared on summons. The High Court observed that because the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had not arrested Choudhury prior to filing the complaint, the Special Court was obligated to release him upon securing a bond under Section 88 CrPC and could not treat him as being in custody or require a bail application. Declaring the practice of taking an accused into custody after compliance with a summons as “completely illegal,” the Court ordered Choudhury’s release on a bond with one surety and an undertaking to appear before the trial court, noting that an examination under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was unnecessary in such circumstances.

MS J M JAIN PROP SHJEETMAL CHORARIA vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2519

The Delhi High Court examined the legal issue of whether a writ petition challenging a GST Show Cause Notice (SCN) could be entertained at a pre-adjudication stage, particularly where the SCN allegedly relied on AI-generated judicial precedents, and where findings from an Income Tax investigation under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were directly imported into GST proceedings without independent verification. The challenge pertained to an SCN dated 26 June 2025 issued to J.M. Jain, alleging concealed turnover, unaccounted stock, parallel accounts maintained on a JSK server, and financial irregularities.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that the writ petition was premature, as no final order had yet been passed and the petitioner had not filed a reply to the SCN. While expressing serious concern over the reference to a non-existent, likely AI-generated judicial precedent in the SCN, the Court directed GST authorities to ensure strict manual verification of all case law and to exercise utmost caution when using AI tools in drafting SCNs or assessment orders. The Bench observed that, notwithstanding the petitioner’s grievances, the adjudicating authority had independently examined the Income Tax materials and therefore the SCN could not be quashed at this stage.

Abhijit Nayak vs TheCommissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2520

The Orissa High Court, while examining the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, dealt with the legal issue of whether a writ petition can be entertained when an alternative statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 becomes functional. The central question before the Court was whether the petitioner could bypass the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) by invoking writ jurisdiction, particularly in light of Section 112(8), which mandates a pre-deposit of admitted tax and 10% of the disputed tax before the appeal can be filed.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that the writ petition was no longer maintainable, since the GSTAT had been constituted and was fully functional. Observing that writ jurisdiction can be invoked only when no statutory forum exists, the Bench ruled that the petitioner must now adhere to the statutory appellate route prescribed under Section 112 of the GST Act.

MS IMAGINE MARKETINGLIMITED vs JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST APPEALSII DELHI & ANR. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2521

The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving the arbitrary cancellation of GST registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The legal issue revolved around whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel the registration of Imagine Marketing Limited without properly considering the taxpayer’s replies and supporting documents, and whether procedural fairness was observed in the issuance of show cause notices and subsequent orders. The matter also raised questions under Section 25 of the CGST Act regarding cancellation and revocation of registration, and the duty of authorities to adjudicate in a reasoned and fair manner.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that the cancellation of GST registration, the rejection of revocation, and the appellate order were arbitrary and lacked application of mind. Observing that all replies, documents, and evidence were filed by the petitioner, the Court set aside all orders, restored the GST registration of Imagine Marketing Limited, and directed the show cause notice to be adjudicated afresh after providing a proper personal hearing. Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the department, to be recovered from the Superintendent responsible for the matter.

Right to Cross-Examine Panchas and Co-Notices Mandatory when their statements relied for Adjudication: Gujarat HC Rejects Excise Appeal

The Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) highlighting that the opportunity to cross-examine pancha witnesses and co-notices is mandatory when their statements are relied upon for adjudication.

The Court observed the tribunal’s conclusion that these statements needed to be excluded from the evidence, citing the Supreme Court decision in Andaman Timber Industries and other similar cases.The Court agreed with the tribunal's findings, noting that there was "no tangible evidence or any corroborative evidence" against the respondent to connect him with the manufacture of gutkha.Since the important witnesses such as panchas and co-notices were not offered the mandatory opportunity for cross-examination, the court found no illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The court dismissed the department appeal.

Ex-Parte GST Order Not Final: Madras HC Grants Opportunity to Recontest after 50% Disputed Tax Payment Owing to Non-Participation

The Madras High Court set aside the immediate enforcement of a GST demand raised for the 2020–21 period, granting conditional relief to petitioner after finding that the assessee had not responded to the earlier notice and order that relied on income-tax data reflected in Form 26AS.

The writ petition was disposed stating that failure to comply with the conditions would entitle the authorities to proceed with recovery as if the writ petition had been dismissed Further, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

ORIENT OVERSEASCONTAINER LINE LIMITED ORS vs UNION OF INDIA& ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2524

The High Court of Gujarat addressed a case involving the distribution of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The legal issue centered on whether the authorities could initiate coercive action against Orient Overseas Container Line Limited for alleged irregularities in ITC distribution across its branches, despite the petitioner’s compliance with GST regulations and Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration. The matter specifically invoked Section 74 of the IGST Act, which deals with tax evasion, although the petitioner contended that no evasion had occurred and that the dispute arose from a misinterpretation of GST provisions and Circular 199/11/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023.

The bench comprising Justices Bhargav D. Karia and P.M. Raval granted interim relief by restraining the authorities from taking any coercive action against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court issued notice returnable on 24.07.2025 and allowed service of notices through email, ensuring that Orient Overseas Container Line Limited could continue its ITC distribution operations without disruption until the next hearing.

ORIENT OVERSEASCONTAINER LINE LIMITED ORS vs UNION OF INDIA& ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2524

The High Court of Gujarat addressed a matter concerning the distribution of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. The legal issue arose when Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, a container shipping and logistics company with multiple branches, challenged an order dated 28.01.2025 issued by Union of India authorities, including CGST officers. The dispute centered on the proper distribution of ITC across the petitioner’s branches under its Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration, while the authorities invoked Section 74 of the IGST Act, typically applicable to cases of tax evasion, despite the petitioner asserting full compliance with GST regulations and Circular 199/11/2023-GST.

The bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice P.M. Raval granted interim relief by restraining the authorities from taking any coercive action against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court issued notice returnable on 24.07.2025 and allowed service of notices through email, ensuring that Orient Overseas Container Line Limited could continue its ITC distribution operations without disruption until the next hearing.

SURESH KUMAR JAIN vsSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2525

The Delhi High Court examined the legal issue of maintainability of successive anticipatory bail applications in a case involving alleged fraudulent transfer and utilisation of RoSCTL export incentive scrips. The matter arose under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under the Information Technology Act, with specific reference to the applicant having been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court was called upon to determine whether pre-arrest protection could be granted when the applicant had repeatedly evaded investigation, ignored notices under Sections 41A and 160 BNSS, and failed to comply with conditions imposed in earlier bail orders.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the fifth anticipatory bail application after noting that the applicant had filed multiple similar pleas before various courts without demonstrating any change in circumstances. The Court held that successive anticipatory bail pleas are impermissible in the absence of new material and that a person declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 BNSS is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Observing the applicant’s persistent non-cooperation, fabricated medical documents, evasion of warrants, and failure to deposit ₹1 crore as previously directed, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary and dismissed the application along with all pending motions.

MAVENIR SYSTEMS PRIVATELIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2526

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the rejection of a GST refund claim pertaining to export of services, holding that the authorities had misapplied Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules, incorrectly invoked the definition of “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, and misconstrued the statutory scheme governing zero-rated supplies under Sections 16 of the IGST Act and 54 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the refund was denied on untenable assumptions relating to realisation of export proceeds and a flawed understanding of the nature of the petitioner’s software development and support services.

The Single Bench of Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar held that the authorities’ insistence on FIRCs was contrary to RBI Circular No. 74/2016, which discontinued their issuance and replaced them with FIRAs. The Court further found that the classification of the petitioner’s activities as intermediary services was legally unsustainable and that statutory endorsements confirming export of services had been ignored without justification. Consequently, the High Court quashed the refund rejection, demand notice and recovery proceedings, and remanded the matter for reconsideration strictly in accordance with the statutory framework.

GST Order uploaded on Portal: Madras HC orders to Lift ITC A/c Attachment on 25% Deposit

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte Goods and Services Tax (GST) order issued against a firm for the financial year 2020-21, holding that the petitioner was not aware of the notice served exclusively through the online portal.

The Court made it clear that non-compliance would cause this remedy to be automatically recalled, enabling the enforcement of the initial order. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The order was passed by on 18.11.2025.

Nandanee SteelCorporation vs The Superintendent of GST andCentral Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2528

The Madras High Court declined to interfere with an Order-in-Original confirming reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC), holding that the dispute must be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism under the GST enactment. The petitioner, Nandanee Steel Corporation, had challenged the order on the ground that it had fulfilled the conditions prescribed under Section 16 of the GST Act and could not be penalised for the supplier's failure to remit tax. However, the Court found that the adjudicating authority had undertaken a detailed examination of the show cause notice and the petitioner’s submissions, leaving no ground to invoke writ jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan upheld the view that the writ petition was not maintainable in light of the available alternative remedy. Observing that the impugned order reflected proper appreciation of facts and statutory provisions, the Court directed the assessee to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-I) within thirty days, subject to the mandatory pre-deposit of fifty percent of the disputed tax. It further directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without reference to limitation, failing which the writ petition would stand dismissed, permitting the department to continue recovery proceedings.

Korfex IndustriesPrivate Limited vs State Of Rajasthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2530

The Rajasthan High Court examined the legality of GST enforcement proceedings arising from the issuance of GST MOV-02 and subsequent detention of goods and the transport vehicle under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The central legal issue pertained to whether the detention was valid in light of alleged procedural lapses and whether proceedings for confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act could be initiated when the transaction was claimed to be legitimate by the petitioner.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit upheld the department’s actions, finding that the transaction was part of a wider fraudulent scheme involving fictitious suppliers, sham documentation, and manipulation of the GST electronic system. While acknowledging procedural irregularities such as non-issuance of MOV-03 and the unexplained movement of the vehicle to Jaipur, the Court held that these defects could not outweigh the substantive discovery of the petitioner’s involvement in a massive fake ITC racket exceeding ₹100 crore.

ATUL LIMITED & ANRvs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2531

The Gujarat High Court examined the legality of refund rejections concerning compensation cess credit arising from coal used for captive power generation, specifically in the context of zero-rated supplies made by Atul Limited. The petitioner challenged the orders rejecting its refund applications filed in FORM RFD-01, arguing that the department had misinterpreted Circular No. 45/19/2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019 and had incorrectly concluded that cess refunds were allowable only where inputs were procured without payment of IGST.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the rejection orders, holding that the authorities had fundamentally misapplied the GST circulars and failed to appreciate binding precedents, including the Court’s earlier rulings in Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd. and Atul Limited (2025). The Bench clarified that neither of the relied-upon circulars prohibited refund of unused compensation cess credit in cases where exports were made on payment of IGST, and reaffirmed that cess paid on coal used for generating electricity consumed in manufacturing exported goods is refundable as long as the outward supply is zero-rated and no cess is leviable on the exported product. Concluding that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by established law, the Court directed the department to process and sanction the refund of accumulated cess credit for all relevant periods, treating the issue as conclusively settled. No order as to costs was imposed.

M/S Ashok KumarMaganbhai Patel vs State of UP and 3 others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2532

The Allahabad High Court examined whether proceedings and penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relating to detention and seizure of goods in transit, could be sustained when the only discrepancy was a single-digit error in the PIN code mentioned in the consignee’s address. The Court was called upon to determine the legality of the seizure and penalty in light of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018, which expressly provides that proceedings under Section 129 should not be initiated in cases where the PIN code is incorrect but the address of consignor/consignee is otherwise accurate and the validity period of the e-way bill remains unaffected.

The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal quashed the penalty and set aside the impugned orders. The Court relied on Clause 5(b) of the CBIC Circular, holding that the authorities had acted contrary to binding instructions by initiating detention proceedings solely on the basis of a minor PIN code error that had no bearing on the transit validity of the e-way bill. Reaffirming the Supreme Court’s ruling in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries (1997) regarding the binding nature of circulars on departmental officers, the Court held that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 129 was arbitrary, contrary to statutory intent, and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded in accordance with law and allowed the writ petition.

Cognizant TechnologySolutions India Private Limited vsCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2533

The Madras High Court examined whether payments made by Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. to Sprint USA for International Private Leased Circuit (IPLC) connectivity services qualified as “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby triggering disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan held that IPLC charges are not royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) or under the India-US DTAA. The Court reaffirmed that mere use of infrastructure for data transmission does not amount to use of equipment. The Bench ruled that domestic amendments cannot override treaty interpretation absent a corresponding change in the DTAA. Consequently, the Court held that no TDS was deductible on IPLC payments and that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was legally unsustainable, thereby allowing Cognizant’s appeal.

Delhi HC Pulls Up GST Authority For Fixing Hearing Only To Upload Order, Terms Practice "Inexplicable

MS JAMIL TRADING COTHRG PROPRIETOR MR JAMIL AHMED vs UNION OFINDIA THRG THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OFFINANCE & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2534

The Delhi High Court examined a critical procedural issue under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arising from the issuance and adjudication of a Show Cause Notice relating to tax demands and alleged ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC). The central legal question before the Court was whether the GST authorities had violated principles of natural justice by granting only five days to respond to the SCN and by issuing personal hearing notices merely for the purpose of uploading orders rather than conducting an actual hearing.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar found clear procedural lapses at both the original and appellate stages. The Court observed that the appellate authority had issued a notice for personal hearing but had already passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal even before the scheduled date, an approach the Bench described as inexplicable and warranting reconsideration. Emphasizing that the petitioner had not been granted a fair and sufficient opportunity of hearing, the Bench set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 16 April 2025, directed that any delay in filing the appeal be condoned, and ordered the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant a proper personal hearing and decide the matter afresh on merits. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with all rights and remedies of the parties left open.

SMT. POONAM GAHLLOT vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2535

The Delhi High Court examined whether a woman summoned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during proceedings under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 could claim exemption from personal appearance by invoking the protection under Section 160(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The legal issue centred on whether the procedural safeguards available to women during criminal investigations particularly the requirement that women be examined only at their residence could be extended to civil inquiries conducted by the ED under FEMA.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the ED’s authority to summon the petitioner to its office and rejected the applicability of Section 160 CrPC to proceedings under FEMA. The Court held that Section 37 of FEMA grants powers analogous to Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which relate to discovery and production of evidence and are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, not the CrPC. Noting that the ED’s inquiry was civil in nature and distinct from criminal investigations under statutes like the PMLA, the Court ruled that CrPC safeguards do not extend to FEMA summons. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and distinguishing earlier High Court rulings, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the ED is not legally bound to record a woman’s statement at her residence in FEMA-related inquiries.

M/s.Devaraj vs TheIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2536

The Madras High Court addressed the scope and limits of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically examining whether the Tribunal could re-determine the assessee’s income while exercising rectification jurisdiction. The issue arose in the context of block assessment proceedings initiated under Section 158BD following a major scam in the Tamil Nadu Government’s dhoti and saree distribution scheme, which uncovered undisclosed transactions linked to M/s. Devaraj. After multiple rounds of assessment and appeals, the ITAT, in its rectification order dated 26.03.2013, re-computed the assessee’s income at 50% of the original assessment prompting the assessee to challenge whether such a substantive reassessment fell within the narrow confines of correcting “mistakes apparent from the record” under Section 254(2).

The matter was adjudicated by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, which held that the ITAT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 254(2). The Court emphasised that rectification power is limited to correcting patents, manifest errors and cannot be used to revisit or review merits. The Bench found that by re-determining income afresh in 2013, the Tribunal had effectively substituted its earlier order with something impermissible under the rectification provision.

Delhi HC Rules Fraudulent GST ITC Case Not Fit for Writ Jurisdiction Owing to Complex Transactions

M/S R GUPTA METAL STOREvs CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHINORTH CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2537

The Delhi High Court examined the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The legal issue before the Court concerned whether such grievances, in cases involving complex factual disputes and fraudulent ITC claims, could be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction rather than through the alternate statutory appellate remedy.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, which declined to entertain the writ petition. The Bench reaffirmed that disputes involving fraudulent ITC and intricate transactional networks require detailed factual adjudication and cannot be addressed in writ jurisdiction, barring exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal by 30.11.2025, which shall be heard on merits if accompanied by the requisite pre-deposit, and the petitioner would be permitted to rely on its earlier reply and documents.

SANDHYA MAULIK PATEL vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2538

The Gujarat High Court examined the validity of notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Revenue to initiate proceedings against a person other than the searched party, provided incriminating material “belonging to” or “relating to” such person is found during the search. The legal issue before the Court centered on whether such documents, none of which mentioned the petitioner or established any nexus with her, could constitute the foundational “incriminating material” required to justify action under Section 153C. The petitioner argued that the MoU did not relate to her in any manner, while the Revenue contended that a difference in sale consideration justified initiating proceedings.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Department had failed to meet the statutory precondition under Section 153C. The Bench found that the MoU discovered during the search pertained to entirely different parties and contained no reference to the petitioner. Furthermore, the AO’s reliance on revenue records and the registered sale deed documents independently collected after the search was held legally untenable, as such material did not constitute “seized incriminating material” found during the search.

Pre-SCN Consultation Notice Not Mandatory Post-2020 GST ITC Fraud Cases: Delhi HC Notes Rule 142(1A) Amendment bars Such Objections

MANPAR EXIM INC vsADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DGGI AND ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2539

The Delhi High Court examined whether a pre-show cause notice (pre-SCN) consultation is mandatory in cases alleging fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, particularly in light of the 2020 amendment to Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, which substituted the word “shall” with “may.” The petition challenged a tax demand issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, arising from allegations of fraudulent availment and passing on of ITC amounting to more than ₹9.60 crore. The core legal issue before the Court concerned whether the amended Rule 142(1A) still imposed a mandatory obligation on the Department to issue a pre-SCN consultation notice, and whether failure to do so vitiated the SCN dated 12 March 2025 and the consequent Order-in-Original dated 22 October 2025.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that, after the 2020 amendment, a pre-SCN consultation is not mandatory, especially in complex ITC fraud investigations involving multiple entities and high-value transactions. Relying on its earlier rulings in Gulati Enterprises and Banson Enterprises, the Court clarified the distinction between the pre- and post-amendment legal positions and affirmed that the amended Rule 142(1A) imposes only a discretionary requirement.

GOVIND GLOBAL VENTURESPVT. LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2540

The Delhi High Court addressed serious procedural lapses in the service of Customs Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and hearing notices, emphasizing the requirement for proper delivery proof for notices sent via speed post. The matter arose in the case of Govind Global Ventures, where the petitioner challenged an ex-parte Order-in-Original and the corrigendum, alleging that the Department failed to serve hearing notices effectively, in violation of principles of natural justice. The Court’s observations applied to notices issued under the Customs Act, 1962, especially after changes brought by the Finance Act, 2022, which amended the adjudication process and pre-deposit requirements.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar set aside the ex-parte adjudication and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh hearing. The Bench directed that the Customs Department must maintain proper tracking receipts and delivery reports for all speed-post notices, noting that failure to do so constitutes a serious procedural defect. The Court also considered the petitioner’s partial pre-deposit of ₹39 lakh, exceeding the statutory 10% requirement, as a factor in its decision to interfere, underscoring the Department’s duty to ensure fair opportunity to defend before passing any final order.

M/S. SHIVASHAKTITRADERS vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2541

The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of appeals arising from the cancellation of GST registration, holding that such appeals cannot be rejected solely on the ground of limitation. The matter arose in the case of M/s. Shivashakti Traders, who challenged the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after their GST registration was cancelled. The Court emphasized that appeals concerning cancellation of registration must be examined on merits, notwithstanding any delay in filing.

The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna set aside the appellate authority’s order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds. The Court directed that the petitioner’s appeal be admitted and decided on merits, citing precedents including Writ Petition Nos. 107549/2024, 108239/2025, and 101618/2025, where delayed appeals in cancellation cases were restored and adjudicated on substantive issues. All other contentions were left open for consideration by the appellate authority, and the petition was disposed of in line with the earlier connected writ petitions.

Arup Kumar Chatterjeevs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax,Bureau of Investigation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2542

The Calcutta High Court addressed the issue of mandatory pre-deposit under GST appeals, holding that recovery of disputed tax beyond 10% satisfies the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST/WBGST). The case arose from an appeal filed by Arup Kumar Chatterjee, whose appeal against a demand order under Section 74 was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The Court emphasized that where more than 10% of the disputed tax has already been recovered, the appeal must be heard on merits, and no further deposit can be insisted upon.

The bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai set aside the appellate authority’s dismissal and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Court noted that although the appellate authority cannot waive the statutory pre-deposit, in this instance, the recovery of more than 10% of the disputed tax effectively met the pre-deposit condition. The Court clarified that no refund order would be passed at this stage due to the delay in approaching the Court, but directed that the petitioner’s appeal be heard on merits without insisting on any additional deposit.

ADNAN ALI vs TheSuperintendent of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2543

The Telangana High Court granted bail in a narcotics case involving the seizure of 9,200 grams of ganja at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad. The case was registered under Sections 20, 23, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). The petitioner, Adnan Ali, challenged his continued detention, arguing that the quantity seized from him 4.6 kilograms, which falls within the statutory intermediate quantity, making extended custody unnecessary.

The Bench of Justice K. Sujana considered that a substantial portion of the investigation had been completed and that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 27 October 2025. Observing that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court granted bail with conditions, including a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount, surrender of passport, regular reporting to the local police, and compliance with Section 437(3) CrPC safeguards, ensuring the petitioner’s availability for investigation while protecting the integrity of the proceedings.

M/S HOTEL GATEWAYGRANDEUR vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2544

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a hotel’s challenge to a service tax demand and penalty confirmed through adjudication cannot be entertained in a writ petition. The case involved M/s Hotel Gateway Grandeur, and the legal issue concerned the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when a statutory appellate remedy exists. The Court emphasized that disputes under Section 73 (determination of tax and penalties), Section 75 (interest), and Section 78 (penalty) of the Finance Act, 1994, must be challenged through the prescribed statutory mechanism under Section 85, rather than through writ jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Kardak Ete observed that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory route provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which offers a complete appellate mechanism to contest adjudication orders. Without entering into the merits of the claim, the Court held the writ petition not maintainable, dismissing it while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. The Court also clarified that the time spent in pursuing the writ would not be counted for limitation purposes, ensuring the petitioner could still seek relief through the proper appellate process.

PFIZER LIMITED vs STATEOF GUJARAT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2545

The Gujarat High Court granted partial relief to Pfizer Limited in an 11-year dispute under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST), concerning the verification of Form F documents for claiming tax exemptions on inter-state branch transfers. The legal issue revolved around whether the tax authorities and the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal could refuse to consider additional Form F documents submitted after the original verification, which were crucial to substantiate non-taxable branch transfers under CST provisions.

The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that Pfizer was entitled to submit additional Form F documents worth Rs. 15.08 crore for verification. The Court noted that prolonged litigation since the assessment year 2012‑13 necessitated a fair opportunity for the company to prove its claims. While Pfizer agreed not to pursue further claims beyond these submissions, the High Court directed the tax authorities to verify the additional documents and determine the remaining tax liability, to be paid by Pfizer within twelve weeks, ensuring procedural fairness and proper assessment of non-taxable stock transfers.

HE COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL TAX vs M/S T C GLOBAL INDIA PVT LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2546

The Delhi High Court upheld the CESTAT, New Delhi ruling that student recruitment services provided to foreign universities by T C Global India Pvt. Ltd. constitute export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and do not qualify as intermediary services under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. The legal issue involved determining whether the services rendered by the respondent to foreign universities were intermediary services, attracting service tax, or export services exempt from taxation. The Department’s appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging CESTAT’s decision and claiming service tax of over Rs. 15.58 crore along with interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 77 and 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Division Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined CESTAT’s order and relevant judicial precedents, including Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Add. Commr. CGST (2023) and Commissioner DGST Delhi vs. Global Opportunities Pvt. Ltd. (2025). The Court concluded that the respondent was not an intermediary, as the agreements were directly with foreign universities, consideration was received in foreign exchange, and Indian students were not the recipients of the service. Observing that CESTAT’s findings were consistent with law and the Show Cause Notice was time-barred, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the services constituted export of services and were not liable to service tax.

Narendra Choudhary vsUnion Of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2548

The Rajasthan High Court dealt with a legal issue concerning bail in a large-scale GST fraud case. The matter involved allegations that the petitioner, Narendra Choudhary, a marble trader, had created fake firms in the names of poor labourers to evade payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST). The offence fell under provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to fraudulent availment and evasion of tax, highlighting the serious economic implications and organized nature of the conspiracy.

The Bench comprising Justice Sameer Jain examined the petition and observed that economic offences affecting public revenue must be dealt with firmly. Considering the ongoing investigation, the central role of the petitioner in the scheme, and the risk of tampering with evidence, the Court dismissed the bail application, holding that release at this stage could obstruct the probe.

ROOVI vs COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2549

The Delhi High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the confiscation of 7 gold bangles weighing 222 grams by Customs authorities at the airport on 18th.02.2024. The petitioner, Roovi, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the detention and confiscation on the ground that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) had been issued prior to the confiscation, and that the ownership of the bangles, belonging to three ladies, raised disputed questions of fact. The case involved interpretation of the Baggage Rules, 2016, and Notification No. 50/2017-Cus, which govern concessional duty limits for importing gold.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that the detention receipt was issued only for one passenger, and no SCN or hearing had been conducted. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to challenge the Order-in-Original through an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The High Court directed that the appeal could be filed by 15.01.2026, would not be dismissed on limitation grounds, and must be adjudicated on merits within four months, ensuring that procedural fairness and rights of the petitioners are protected.

The Kerala High Court has quashed a show cause notice issued to a taxpayer regarding input tax credit, establishing that tax authorities must first initiate proceedings against suppliers before targeting recipients of input tax credit under the CGST Act. The bench held that “GST recovery proceedings can be initiated against the supplier, only if the proceedings initiated against the purchaser did not materialise”

The core legal issue was whether tax authorities could initiate proceedings against the recipient of input tax credit without first initiating proceedings against the suppliers who had failed to remit the tax to the government. The petitioner argued that no proceedings had been initiated against the suppliers as mandated under Section 42 of the CGST Act, and that the notice was also issued beyond the limitation period of three years.

The court observed that tax authorities had not initiated any proceedings against the suppliers before issuing the notice to the petitioner, and there was no evidence of collusion between the petitioner and suppliers. The court characterized this as a failure to follow the statutory procedure under Section 42 of the CGST Act.