JAVED ALI GOUSE vsJAVED ALI GOUSE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2551

The Delhi High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the seizure of a 58-gram gold chain by Customs authorities at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi. The petitioner, Javed Ali Gouse, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the pre-printed waiver form used by Customs for personal hearing and seeking release of the seized gold chain. The case involved interpretation of procedural safeguards under the Customs Act and principles of natural justice, emphasizing that passengers must be provided proper notice and a fair hearing before confiscation of goods.

The Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that standard pre-printed waivers of SCN and personal hearing are invalid in law, as established in Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, 2025. The Court directed the Customs Department to issue a personal hearing notice to the petitioner via email and mobile number, and to conduct the hearing on 14th January 2026, taking into account the petitioner’s long-term residence abroad and the option to re-export the gold chain.

Nishant Ispat PrivateLimited & Anr vs State of West Bengal& Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2552

The Calcutta High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the CGST/WBGST Act. The case involved Nishant Ispat Private Limited, which challenged the GST appellate authority’s refusal to admit its appeal on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit had allegedly not been made. The Court examined whether prior recovery by the Department exceeding the statutory 10% pre-deposit in earlier proceedings, which were later withdrawn, could satisfy the pre-deposit requirement for fresh proceedings arising from the same show-cause notice.

The Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that since the Department had already recovered more than 10% of the disputed tax prior to filing the appeal, the statutory pre-deposit requirement stood automatically fulfilled. The Court set aside the appellate order dated 24.04.2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. Additionally, the Court directed that any amount recovered in excess of 10% of the disputed tax must be refunded to the petitioner after verification, while clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the appeal.

NB INTERNATIONAL vsCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAXAND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2553

The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the legality of repeated blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the CGST/HGST Rules. The case involved NB International, a Haryana-based manufacturer of brass and copper sheets, whose ITC of ₹82.50 lakh was blocked multiple times beyond the statutory one-year limit. The Court examined whether ITC blocking could be extended beyond one year in the absence of fresh proceedings or new grounds, emphasizing that such measures are intended as a protective mechanism for revenue and not as a tool for recovery.

The Bench held that the repeated blocking of ITC without fresh grounds was unsustainable and contrary to Rule 86A(3) read with Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The Court observed that restrictive measures exist solely to protect revenue during investigation and cannot be extended indefinitely. The High Court set aside the renewed blocking order, clarifying that ITC cannot remain blocked beyond one year unless expressly authorised by law.

"LAXMI METAL ANDMACHINES THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. SATISHKUMAR JOON" CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2555

The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the legal issue of GST refund appeal limitation under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The case involved Laxmi Metal and Machines, which sought a refund of ₹2,94,614 paid under protest toward IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge during audit proceedings. The dispute arose after the Supreme Court declared the levy unconstitutional in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal, held that the appeal had been filed within the statutory extended period, noting that limitation begins the day after communication of the order. The Court found the Appellate Authority’s computation flawed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order-in-appeal dated June 19, 2025, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the petitioner be granted a proper hearing.

M/S Maa ConstructionAnd Supplier Company Thru. ProprietorArkhan Baig vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2556

The Allahabad High Court dealt with the legal issue of GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, focusing on the principles of natural justice and reasoned decision-making under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, M/s Maa Construction and Supplier Company, challenged the ex-parte cancellation order dated 19 October 2024 and the appellate order dated 31 October 2025, which dismissed the appeal solely on limitation grounds. The dispute arose because the petitioner was not afforded a proper hearing, and the cancellation order lacked any reasoning, severely affecting its right to continue business under Article 19(1)(g).

The bench, comprising Justice Jaspreet Singh, observed that the impugned order was mechanical and without application of mind, failing the test of reasoned quasi-judicial decision-making under Article 14. The Court held that cancellation orders must provide reasons and consider the petitioner’s representation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the GST registration cancellation order dated 19.10.2024, emphasizing that the authorities must follow the principles of natural justice and issue reasoned orders in future.

SUKHBIR SINGH vs THECOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2557

The Delhi High Court addressed the legal issue concerning the confiscation of gold jewellery by Customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1962, particularly examining claims regarding whether seized items were old personal ornaments versus newly purchased items, and procedural compliance with personal hearing and show-cause notice requirements. The petitioner, Sukhbir Singh, challenged the Order-in-Original, which confiscated two gold chains and a pendant seized at IGI Airport on 3.02.2024, alleging that the jewellery was old and that he had been forced to sign a pre-printed waiver of the SCN.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar physically inspected the jewellery in court and found that all but one small chain were new and likely purchased abroad. Observing procedural lapses, including the absence of a proper SCN and personal hearing, the Court nonetheless held that the petitioner’s claim that the items were old could not be accepted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to file a statutory appeal by 15.01.2026, which must be decided on merits without rejection on limitation grounds. The Court also directed that a personal hearing notice be served to the petitioner’s counsel and that the seized items be resealed and returned to Customs for further proceedings.

Empee DistilleriesLimited vs The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2561

The Madras High Court dealt with the legal issue concerning the extinguishment of tax demands under the Income Tax Act, 1961, once a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is approved. The appellant, Empee Distilleries Limited, challenged tax demands for Assessment Years 2008‑09, 2009‑10, and 2010‑11, arguing that the claims were pre-resolution and, therefore, extinguished upon approval of the IBC resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the appellant’s contention, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021). The Court held that statutory tax claims not included in the approved resolution plan stand unenforceable and cannot be pursued further. Since the Revenue neither secured inclusion of its claim in the plan nor challenged the NCLT order, all tax demands arising from the assessment and appellate orders were held extinguished, and the High Court allowed the appellant’s appeals.

M/S Saniya Traders vsAdditional Commissioner Grade-2 AndAnother CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2564

The Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST Act, specifically under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act. The Court examined whether a bona fide purchaser could be denied ITC when the supplier was validly registered at the time of supply, had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and the tax was deposited with the authorities.

The Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that the reversal was unsustainable, noting that statutory documents including the supplier’s GSTR-3B and the auto-populated GSTR-2A for the purchaser demonstrated genuineness of the transaction. The Court emphasized that Section 74 proceedings apply only in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression. Since none of these existed, the High Court quashed the ITC reversal orders and allowed the writ petition, confirming that bona fide purchasers cannot be penalized for later cancellation of a supplier’s registration.

M/S EVES FASHION vsUNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2565

The Delhi High Court dealt with the restoration of GST registration under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, where the petitioner, M/s Eves Fashion, faced cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns. The case arose from circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, including severe illness during COVID-19 and non-cooperation from the Chartered Accountant, which resulted in loss of portal access and inability to file returns. The Court considered whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to reinstate registration despite the delay, given the suspension of business operations.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Mini Pushkarna restored the petitioner’s GST registration, observing that the petitioner had made persistent attempts to access the portal and file pending returns. The Court directed the Department to provide new login credentials or enable physical filing, allowing the petitioner to submit all outstanding returns with applicable interest and late fees. It clarified that while the Department could take subsequent action in accordance with law, the statutory limitation for issuing notices would not bar the restoration. The writ petition was thus allowed, ensuring continuity of commercial activity.

GAURAV ENTERPRISES vsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2567

The Calcutta High Court addressed the recovery of disputed tax demands under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The legal issue revolved around whether the Income Tax Department could adjust refunds from other assessment years to recover more than 20% of a disputed demand while the statutory appeal under Section 246A was pending.

The Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the recovery beyond 20% was not justified and directed the Department to refund the excess amount within eight weeks, following verification. The Court clarified that while Section 220(6) provides discretion to treat an assessee as in default, this discretion must conform to CBDT instructions, which generally allow recovery only up to 20% of the disputed demand unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court also urged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite disposal of the pending appeal, ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards and protection of the assessee’s rights.

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an importer challenging the seizure of imported goods, establishing that a customs officer's "reasonable belief" in misclassification is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated through statutory remedies.

The issue was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could interfere with a customs officer's "reasonable belief" that goods were misdeclared and liable for confiscation. The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary as the officer did not specify the correct classification in the seizure memo.

The court found that even though the correct classification wasn't explicitly stated in the initial seizure memo, this was rectified in the subsequent show cause notice, which fortified the officer's initial belief that the goods should fall under CTH 2008 9999 (covering fruits, nuts, and other edible parts of plants). Since the petitioner has a statutory right to appeal against the final order in the Section 124 proceedings, the writ petition was premature.

Calcutta HC Orders Advance Ruling Board to Quickly decide on Joint Ventures Taxation as Revised ITR Filing Deadline Approaches

The Calcutta High Court directed the Board for Advance Rulings to expedite its decision on the petitioner’s clarification regarding the taxation of joint venture transactions with another firm, as the deadline for filing revised income tax returns on 31 December 2025 is approaching.

The bench comprising Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that the petitioner had filed its application under Section 245Q of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26 February 2025, but despite sufficient time having passed, the Board had not yet given its ruling.

25% Pre-Deposit Order in ₹3.12 Crore EPF Dispute Set Aside: Jharkhand HC directs CGIT to Reconsider on Merits

M/s. Kashish Developers Limited vs Employees ProvidentFund Organization CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2571

The Jharkhand High Court set aside the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's (CGIT) order requiring the petitioner to deposit ₹3.12 crore (25% of ₹12.49 crore EPF liability) as a precondition for hearing its appeal. Thus, the tribunal has been directed to reconsider the pre-deposit application afresh or hear the appeal on merits. The dispute arose from an EPF liability determined for the period April 2016 to March 2020, primarily concerning provident fund dues for labourers engaged through contractors.

The High Court composed of Justice Deepak Roshan, observed that the Tribunal had indeed failed to consider the petitioner's strong prima facie case, particularly regarding the Adjudicating Authority's duty to collect relevant evidence from contractors and the contractors' primary responsibility for their employees' provident fund dues. The Court also found that the Tribunal had not adequately assessed the balance of convenience or the potential irreparable injury to the petitioner.

Sales Tax Assessment Based on Document Seizure During Survey: Allahabad HC Finds Commercial Tax Tribunal's Relief Adequate

M/S Abhishek Traders vs The Commissioner Commercial Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2572

The Allahabad High Court upheld the best judgment tax assessment arising from documents seized during a 2016 survey, whereby the Commercial Tax Tribunal had already granted substantial relief based on the suppression found. Thus, finding no scope for further interference, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

The Revisionist, M/S Abhishek Traders, engaged in the business of Civil Work Contract for Government and Semi-Government, had filed revision against the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra in Second Appeal No.73 of 2024. The revision was admitted by this Court on 08.02.2025. The court further relied upon the judgement by the appellant in the case of M/s B.S. Enterprises (supra) which justified an enhancement of turnover to the extent of 10%. Considering that a best judgment assessment had been made and relief had already been granted by the Tribunal, acting as the final court of fact and law, the Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order.

GST Ex-Parte Order Quashed: Allahabad HC Rules SCN Defective for Mentioning "N/A" in Place of Personal Hearing Date

The Allahabad High Court quashed an ex-parte order that had imposed tax, interest, and penalty of the personal hearing. The court found that this constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.

It was observed that the SCN was wrong at the time of initiation itself by applying the principles laid down in the coordinate bench ruling. As the authorities failed to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law, the court concluded that the principles of natural justice were violated.

Fresh Assessment on Increased Plinth Area Justified u/s 5(4) of Kerala Building Tax Act: Kerala HC Dismisses Challenge to Demand

The Kerala High Court has upheld a fresh assessment and demand for building tax and ruled that an increase in a building's plinth area due to subsequent construction correctly triggers a re-computation of the tax based on the total area, as mandated by Section 5(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.

The bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. dismissed the writ petition and found that the challenge to the assessment was not maintainable. The court observed that the situation is governed by Section 5(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which stipulates:

"when the plinth area of a building is subsequently increased by new extensions, major repairs, or improvements after its initial completion, building tax shall be computed on the total plinth area of the building including that of the new extension or repair or improvement and credit shall be given to the tax already levied and collected".

Delay in Filing Income Tax Audit Report by Trust: AP HC Condones Delay noting Covid-19 issues and Treasurer’s Advanced Age

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has condoned the delay in filing the income tax audit report (Form 10B) by a religious charitable trust, considering the Covid-19 disruptions and the advanced age of its treasurer, who was responsible for statutory compliance.

Justices Battu Devanand and Hari Haranadha Sharma, after examining the record, the High Court noted that the delay was due to exceptional circumstances. The Court found merit in the trust’s explanation regarding the inability of the elderly treasurer to attend to departmental proceedings during the pandemic period.

The court, observing that the petitioner was engaged in bona fide religious and charitable activities and that the delay was neither intentional nor mala fide, held that a reasonable opportunity must be given to the trust to submit the documents sought by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions).

Dealers also Covered by Licensing Mandate u/r 3 of Brick Kiln Act: J&K HC Validates Seizure Orders Against Brick Dealers

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in a recent case, has upheld the validity of licensing requirements under Rule 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Rules, 2017, holding that both dealers and manufacturers fall within its ambit. The decision came in writ petitions filed by Kehar Singh and other traders, who challenged orders of seizure and penalties imposed by the District Magistrates of Kathua and Samba on vehicles transporting bricks imported from outside the Union Territory.

The Court also relied on interpretative principles laid down by the Supreme Court in J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India and Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of U.P., noting that conjunctions “and” and “or” may be read interchangeably to give effect to legislative intent. Applying this principle, the Court held that the inclusion of “dealer” in Rule 3 was deliberate and necessary to regulate the entire brick trade chain. The alleged inconsistency between Rule 3 and Section 15 was described as “illusory,” since both provisions impose obligations on dealers alongside manufacturers.

Delay Understandable when Advocate Dies: Calcutta HC Condones Late GST Appeal Filing, Says Parties Need Time to Engage New Advocate

In the recent ruling, the Calcutta HC condoned the Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal caused by the sudden illness and death of the petitioner’s advocate and held that parties cannot be expected to immediately engage new counsel under such circumstances. It restored the appeal and directed the authority to decide the matter on merits.

The Petitioner, Hara Prasad Das, had filed an appeal against an order dated August 16, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017, which the appellate authority dismissed on the grounds of delay on November 12, 2025. The Petitioner could not collect the papers and documents from the office of the Advocate until July 10, 2025 and he was also preoccupied with his elder brother's treatment, who also died in January 2025.

The High Court, after considering the material on record, set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the condonation application. The Court observed that delays caused by an advocate's demise and subsequent engagement of new counsel are not uncommon and constitute sufficient explanation.

Relief for Lalitha Jewellery: Madras HC Quashes ₹51 Crore Unexplained Cash Credits Addition due to Uncorroborated Search Statements

Represented by N. Murali Kumaran, the assessee submitted that the AO acted solely on third-party statements recorded during the search in the case of another person. It was argued that complete documentary evidence was placed before the authority, demonstrating identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of all investors. Further, submitted that earlier rulings involving the same assessee for a previous year, which were upheld up to the Supreme Court, applied squarely to the present controversy.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possess concurrent powers to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while dismissing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of notices issued outside the faceless reassessment framework.

The Bench consisting of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar rejected the petitions. The Court held that its earlier ruling in TKS Builders (2024) continues to govern the jurisdictional issue and that both the JAO and the FAO possess concurrent authority to issue reassessment notices under Section 148. The Court also noted that Special Leave Petitions challenging TKS Builders are still pending before the Supreme Court and that there is no stay on the operation of the said judgment.

The Calcutta High Court declined to entertain a revenue appeal challenging the deletion of an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the tax effect involved was below the ₹2 crore monetary threshold prescribed in Circular No. 9/2024, thereby rendering the appeal non-maintainable.

The Bench comprising Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was well below the monetary threshold of ₹2 crore prescribed in Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documents during assessment as well as before the Tribunal, and given that the appeal fell squarely within the limitations imposed by the circular.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that Section 74 applies only where non-payment or short payment of tax is due to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Since Apollo Tyres had voluntarily disclosed its intent to pay the higher tax before the DGGI investigation and there was no evidence of deliberate evasion, the invocation of Section 74 was “without jurisdiction.”

Claim of ‘Lack of Speedy Remedy’ Not Enough to Invoke Article 226 when Statute Provides Complete Appellate Route: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a tax demand raised under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), holding that the petition was barred by delay and that the petitioner’s plea of lacking a speedy or efficacious remedy did not constitute sufficient cause for invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court said that mere making a statement that the petitioner has no other speedy, efficacious or alternative remedy would not constitute sufficient cause to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the statute provides a clear and complete appellate framework.

The bench further noted that service of the order through the common GST portal is deemed service under Section 169, negating the petitioner’s submission that the order was not communicated. Additionally, the Court held that questions relating to eligibility for ITC involves disputed facts and must be adjudicated by the statutory appellate authority and not in writ proceedings.

System Failure due to Heavy Rainfall: Karnataka HC condones 36 days delay in filing ITR

The Karnataka High Court has held that the 36-day delay in filing income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2017-18 warranted condonation, as that system failure caused by heavy rainfall constituted a valid and sufficient ground for relief under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The single bench of Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar observed that the authority had adopted a hyper-technical view in refusing condonation of a short delay of 36 days, despite the petitioner having demonstrated bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. The Court held that failure to appreciate the effect of system failure due to heavy rainfall, along with the genuine hardship according to Circular No. 9/2015, rendered the rejection legally unsustainable.

Regd. Seller cannot be Denied Tax Deduction because Regd. Dealer Stole ST-15 Forms: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh recently clarified that a registered seller cannot be denied tax deduction benefits merely because the ST-15 forms furnished by a purchasing dealer were later found to be stolen, as the seller had no knowledge of such theft.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Jagmohan Bansal and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal that the concerned ST-15 forms were genuine departmental forms, even though they had been stolen.

The Bench held that there was neither evidence nor allegation that MMTC had any knowledge of or role in the theft of the forms. Therefore, denying deduction would amount to punishing a party without fault. The Court clarified that verification of a buyer’s certificate is not the statutory duty of the seller, and there exists no provision in the Act that empowers authorities to deny deduction solely on the ground that the forms furnished were stolen.

Big Win for Actor Yash: Karnataka HC Confirms ‘Searched Person’ Status, Quashes Order Passed u/s 153C Without Incriminating Material

The Karnataka High Court has granted significant relief to Kannada actor Yash, holding that he was a “searched person” under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, could not be subjected to proceedings under Section 153C. A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna quashed the notices issued to him on the ground that no incriminating material had been found to justify the assumption of jurisdiction.

The Court underlined that “sole, unmistakable conclusion/inference that can be arrived at from the material on record is that the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person/such other person as contemplated under Section 153C of theI.T. Act and consequently, Section 153C would neither be applicable nor invocable as against the petitioner, who was a searched person to whom this provision would not apply.”

Electricity Regulatory Commissions are not Suppliers: Karnataka HC Quashes ₹13.42 Cr GST Demand on KERC

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand of ₹13.42 crore raised against the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC), holding that electricity regulatory commissions are not “suppliers” under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Karnataka High Court further noted that Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma had in that judgment referenced Section 9 of the CGST Act which provides for levy of CGST on intra-State supplies of goods or services or both. The Bench held that the ratio applied squarely to KERC, thus warranting quashing of the demand order and the show cause notice.

Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant” Favours CCI Over TRAI: Kerala HC Upholds Probe Against Jio Hotstar for Abuse of Dominance

The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling in the long‑running dispute between Jiostar India Pvt Ltd (formerly Star India, now operating as Jio Hotstar) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). On 3 December 2025, the bench upheld the CCI’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of abuse of dominance in the broadcasting sector, rejecting Jiostar’s contention that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was the sole regulator.

Therefore, no prior hearing is required, and the principles of natural justice are not violated at this stage. Jiostar would have ample opportunity to contest jurisdiction and merits before the CCI during the investigation.

The Court also addressed the overlap between TRAI and CCI, observing that while TRAI regulates pricing and contractual terms in broadcasting, it does not have explicit provisions to deal with anti‑competitive practices.

GST Notices Cannot be Deemed Served only by Portal Upload after Cancellation of Registration: Allahabad HC says its Natural Justice Violation

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, quashed orders passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and held that once a petitioner's registration was cancelled, they are not obligated to check the GST portal. The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B.Sarafand Justice Manjive Shukla, expressed agreement with the principle enunciated by the coordinate Bench.

The bench observed that once the registration has been cancelled, the petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal. The court held that the mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner. The court found that serving a show cause notice solely through a portal upload subsequent to the cancellation, and without alternative means of service, constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice.

Supreme Court affirms DRI as ‘Proper Officers’ u/s 28 of Customs: P&H HC rejects 17-Year Challenge against Customs Duty Recovery

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed 17-year-old writ petitions filed by three export companies challenging the jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, confirming that DRI officers are "proper officers" with authority to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962.

The Supreme Court had held that DRI officers were appointed as customs officers through appropriate notifications and that Circular No. 4/99-Cus and Notification No. 44/2011 empowered them to issue show cause notices. Consequently, finding that the Supreme Court had settled the question of DRI officers' jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, directing the DRI to proceed with the adjudication of the show cause notices

Fraudulent GST ITC Matter Requires Factual Adjudication: Delhi HC Declines Writ, Relegates Matter to Appeal u/s 107 CGST Act

The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging a GST demand order, holding that fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) cases require factual adjudication and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, speaking for the Bench, emphasised that in such cases involving fraudulent ITC, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not maintainable. The Court observed: “In matters of this nature, where there are a large number of noticees who are connected to each other, the SCN has been properly uploaded on the portal and no satisfactory reply is filed by the Petitioner, the Court shall not interfere.”

The Court also issued an advisory to the CGST Department, noting repeated errors in notices and orders, and directed that caution be exercised in future while mentioning financial years, due dates, and material particulars. Copies of the order were directed to be circulated to all Commissionerates for compliance.

Confiscation Proceedings on Excess Stock Without Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC sets aside Ex-Parte order passed Without Hearing

The Allahabad High Court set aside an ex-parte order that initiated confiscation proceedings and raised a demand and ruled that proceedings against surplus stock found during a survey under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, may never be made subject to confiscation. The Court also found a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that the violation of rules of natural justice was "writ large on face of record," and such an order could not be sustained. It set aside the impugned order dated March 19, 2025, without entering into the merits of the case.

GST SCN Unanswered and Ex Parte Order Passed: Delhi HC Remands Case, Validity of Notification in Question Awaits SC Verdict

The Delhi High Court has set aside an ex parte GST demand order against the petitioner, holding that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.

In that case, the Court held: “Since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the SCN and consequent order were passed without hearing, an opportunity ought to be afforded to contest the matter on merits.”

Applying the same principle, the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar in this case held that natural justice had been breached. The impugned order was accordingly set aside, subject to payment of ₹20,000 as costs to the Delhi High Court Clerks Association.

58g Gold Chain Seized from Saudi Passenger, No SCN issued: Delhi HC Orders Fresh Personal Hearing

The Delhi High Court has held that the alleged waiver of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in a 58 gram gold seizure matter was not legally valid, directing the Customs Department to grant a fresh personal hearing in accordance with the procedure mandated under the Customs Act, 1962.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that printed waivers and pre-filled formats cannot substitute statutory requirements under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court reiterated that an oral SCN cannot be treated as valid compliance with Section 124. The Court observed that a waiver must be a conscious, voluntary act and that expecting passengers or their representatives to sign standard documents at the point of appraisement is legally untenable.

No TDS Deductible on Decree/Arbitral Award: Calcutta HC Orders Refund, Denies Interest

The Calcutta High Court ordered the refund of tax deductible at source (TDS) and has reaffirmed that no tax is deductible at source from sums payable under a decree or arbitral award, unless expressly authorised by statute. The bench directed the Award Debtor to refund the TDS amounts erroneously deducted while releasing the decretal sum.

Justice Guarang Kanth observed that the Award Debtor had mistakenly deducted TDS amounts of ₹54,06,844 and ₹8,56,800 while releasing the decretal sum, despite the settled legal position. The Court directed that these amounts be refunded to the Award Holder within four weeks, without any interest.

Justice Kanth clarified that the Award Debtor is at liberty to approach the Income Tax Authorities to seek recovery or refund of the deposited amounts, in accordance with law and precedents such as S.S. Miranda Ltd. v. Shyam Bahadur Singh (1984). With these directions, the execution petition was disposed of.

Madras HC Rejects Writ Petition, Says Indo Japan Polymers Woke Up From Deep Slumber to Challenge ₹69.25 Lakh Customs Demand after 2½ Years

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Indo Japan Polymers Pvt. Ltd. challenging a customs demand order of ₹69.25 lakh.

The Court held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised when a litigant fails to act within a reasonable time. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority under the Customs Act.

The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that unexplained laches of nearly 2½ years barred relief under Article 226. Entertaining such petitions would undermine the principle of finality in administrative decisions and encourage indolence among litigants. The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The Court clarified that it was not inclined to go into the merits of the customs demand since the petitioner had failed to challenge the order within a reasonable time.

1035 Litres Liquor Seizure: Patna HC Allows Provisional Anticipatory Bail, Orders Antecedent Check Before Confirmation

The Patna High Court has granted provisional anticipatory bail to two petitioners implicated in a liquor seizure case involving 1035.780 litres under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, 2016. Bail was made conditional on verification of criminal antecedents, with concealment to result in cancellation.

Justice Satyavrat Verma, hearing the matter, distinguished between the antecedents of the two petitioners. Krishnand Rai claimed clean antecedents, while Bittu Kumar admitted to having four prior cases.

Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds 18% GST Demand on Pre-2022 Road and Drain Works, Directs APIIC to Settle Differential Tax with Contractor

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the GST assessment relating to works contract services executed for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), reiterating that the issue already stands concluded by an earlier judgment.

The Bench, comprising Justice R. RaghunandanRao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, held that the controversy was no longer res integra, having been resolved in W.P. No. 22663 of 2023 by order dated July 24, 2024. Following the said precedent, the Bench affirmed the assessment in its entirety.

At the same time, the Court directed APIIC to pay the differential tax component to the petitioner for the periods covered under the impugned order, in order to enable transfer to the Commercial Tax Department. The Court stated that the admitted dues must be paid within two months from the day the order is received.

Gujarat HC Quashes ₹464-Crore SCN under Customs Act for Palm Kernel Oil Imports, Holding Authorities Cannot Superimpose End-Use Test Not Stipulated in Tariff or Notification

The Gujarat High Court set aside a show-cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962 concerning the import of crude palm kernel oil, holding that the customs authorities could not deny exemption by reading an end-use condition into an exemption entry that expressly covered goods of edible grade without linking eligibility to actual edible use.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta, rejecting the department’s stance, concluded that there was no end-use test specified in the exemption anticipated under Entry 57. The Court noted that the department's circular could not serve as the foundation for a demand because it had already been annulled. It came to the conclusion that the authorities could not import criteria that were not included in the notification and that the edible-grade requirement was a matter of specification rather than usage.

Calcutta HC Confirms Bail on SSC Scam, Cites Discrepancies in CBI/ED Case

The Calcutta High Court, in an order delivered, has confirmed the interim bail previously granted to Sujay Krishna Bhadra, an accused in a multi-crore teacher recruitment(SSC) scam being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Court held that the petitioner stands on a similar footing to several co-accused who have already been granted bail. The CBI's delay in naming him as an accused only in the third supplementary charge sheet filed over two and a half years after the FIR along with the unlikelihood of the trial commencing in the near future, weighed in his favor.

The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh also took into account that the petitioner has already been granted bail in a related PMLA case based on similar allegations, and citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, stated that it would be a "travesty of justice" to keep him in further detention.

16,000 Litre Spirit Seizure: Patna HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Lady Civic Volunteer

The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 30(A), 33, 41 and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, in a case involving the seizure of 16,000 litres of spirit from two trucks.

However, Justice Satyavrat Verma, after hearing both sides, directed that in the event the petitioner is arrested or surrenders herself within six weeks, she may be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties.

The order was made subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring that the petitioner cooperates with the investigation and does not misuse the liberty granted.