Annual Tax and Corporate Law Digest 2025: High Court Cases [Part XLVIII]

Ramaa Engineering &Anr vs The State of West Bengal &Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2751

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a partnership firm's partner's illness constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, and Central GST Act, 2017, setting aside the appellate authority's dismissal of Ramaa Engineering's appeal against a Section 73 assessment order. The legal issue arose from rejection solely on limitation grounds despite medical evidence of petitioner no. 2's illness impacting timely filing.

Justice Om Narayan Rai held marginal delay, unsupported by gross negligence, warranted condonation where the explanation accepted but disregarded the directly impaired firm operations. Noting the authority acknowledged illness and documents yet threshold-dismissed without disbelief, the Court restored the appeal for merits adjudication, emphasizing bona fide reasons in GST appeals preclude mechanical rejection. It clarified partner incapacity affects firm compliance, distinguishing deliberate inaction. The writ disposed without costs, reinforcing equitable delay condonation in tax proceedings.

MKR Palanisamy vsAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2752

The Madras High Court dismissed the assessee's appeal against ITAT's order for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2007-08, confirming remand directions for fresh assessments under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153C while noting the Department's 13-year inaction rendered consequential orders time-barred under Section 153(2A). The legal issue challenged ITAT's revival of "irregular" assessments, potential defeat of Section 153B(1) limitation via appellate directions, and non-adherence to coordinate bench precedents annulling similar cases.

Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held the one-year limit under Section 153(2A) expiring 31.03.2014 post-Tribunal order receipt long lapsed without Departmental notices or action, mooting substantial questions of law. No consequential proceedings materialized despite 2013 admission of appeal questions, with Revenue confirming absence of records. Uniformity across group assessees where Revenue withdrew low-effect appeals or abstained precluded deviant stance. The Court returned questions unanswered, disposing of the stale matter sans utility, as limitation extinguished revival possibility.

KAPIL MADAN vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2753

The Delhi High Court urged the GST Council to urgently examine reducing or abolishing 18% GST on air purifiers (HSN 84213920) and HEPA filters, observing no prima facie justification for higher rates when they perform health-protective functions akin to notified medical devices attracting 5% GST under Notification dated 11.02.2020 issued per Section 3(b)(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 especially amid Delhi's severe air pollution crisis. In Kapil Madan's public interest writ, Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar highlighted Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations criticizing the levy and seeking abolition/reduction.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela validated concerns via committee findings and local air quality, directing earliest Council consideration. The Division Bench acknowledged the GST Council's constitutional role while listing the matter before the vacation bench for timeline compliance, preserving judicial restraint on rate-setting. It emphasized arbitrary classification amid public health imperatives, reinforcing policy review without mandating relief.

PITAMBER SOLVEX PRIVATELIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2754

The Delhi High Court ruled that crude soyabean oil imports qualify for Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) exemption where the Bill of Lading falls within the protected period, on or before 31.12.2023 per Public Notice dated 11.01.2023, directing refund of ₹24.03 lakh customs duty paid under protest to Pitamber Solvex Private Limited despite arrival post-1 April 2023 andNotification No. 37/2023-Customs. The legal issue challenged denial under Notification No. 30/2022-Customs (TRQ licence) amid a "gap period" created by TRQ discontinuation, with Jaipur-based petitioner clearing at Kandla Port invoking coordinate bench precedent in Ajanta Soya Ltd. v. Union of India.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain upheld jurisdiction despite two-year pendency sans prior objection, noting Supreme Court dismissal of SLP against Ajanta Soya on merits/delay. Affirming Bill of Lading date governs eligibility not arrival, the Division Bench held arbitrary denial unsustainable, mandating refund processing within three months. It clarified the unique factual disposition precludes precedential value, balancing jurisdictional restraint with settled law on TRQ continuity.

Marjaan Traders vsUnion of lndia CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2755

The Telangana High Court ruled that seized Multi-Functional Devices, 107 units imported under Bill of Entry dated 22.09.2025, qualify for conditional provisional release despite seizure memo dated 29.09.2025 by Superintendent of Customs, ICD Timmapur, while permitting independent adjudication proceedings. Marjaan Traders invokedArticle 226 relief citing financial hardship, arguing preliminary seizure lacked jurisdiction mirroring prior writs where provisional release was granted subject to conditions.

Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao disposed of the petition at the admission stage, equating facts to precedents. Directing release upon enhanced duty payment, 10% bank guarantee of goods value, and standard safeguards, the Division Bench held provisional access prejudices on investigation, preserving Customs' evidentiary/adjudicatory autonomy uninfluenced by release order. It clarified ongoing probe rights sans costs, balancing importer liquidity against revenue safeguards in identical disputes.

OSWAL ALLOYS PVT LTD vsUNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2756

The Karnataka High Court directed the Joint Director General of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to reconsider M/s Oswal Alloys Pvt. Ltd.'s application for Duty Credit Scrip benefits exceeding ₹1 crore under the Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme (IEIS), following Supreme Court clarification permitting such claims subject to enhanced Regional Authority scrutiny. The legal issue challenged DGFT's 30.03.2023 order capping entitlement at ₹1 crore per IEC under amended paragraph 3.14.5(c) of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, despite verified ₹1.43 crore claim ignoring prior High Court directions in W.P. No.12826/2018.

Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad quashed the restriction, aligning with SC rulings against the Union of India on IEIS caps. Mandating fresh adjudication within eight weeks of certified copy receipt, the Court enabled petitioner submission of manufacturing/purchase records, excise/sales tax returns, and supplier export data for growth verification. Noting 12-year pendency, it emphasized expeditious resolution sans prejudice to higher scrutiny protocols. The order restores application post-impugned rejection, enforcing SC-mandated flexibility over rigid IEC limits.

Tirupati Traders &Anr vs The Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2757

The Calcutta High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings under Section 73 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, and Central GST Act, 2017, where adjudicating authority recovered over 20% disputed tax from Tirupati Traders' electronic credit ledger despite a pending rectification application challenging the Order-in-Original for natural justice violations on unconsidered SCN reply, denied personal hearing, wrong provision application. The legal issue balanced statutory appeal remedies against premature recovery amid rectification, with petitioners arguing demand survival hinges on application outcome.

Justice Om Narayan Rai directed the decision within four weeks, halting further recovery conditions on 20% plus pre-recovery. Rejecting departmental pleas on writ maintainability and delay in the light of availability of alternate appeal, the Court held rectification pendency capable of nullifying demand warrants restraint, especially post-partial realization. It preserved >20% security adequacy sans costs, disposing the writ while enforcing procedural fairness over mechanical enforcement.

Soumyendu Bikash Janavs The State Of West Bengal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2759

The Calcutta High Court quashed a GST appellate order under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, for failing to consider transportation bills and supporting documents submitted by Soumyendu Bikash Jana proving no excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment or short tax payment on outward supplies for the period April 2018-March 2019. The legal issue challenged mechanical rejection despite petitioner's GTA role and exempt goods dealings, post-adjudication order on unanswered SCN alleging ITC reversal.

Justice Om Narayan Rai held that non-application of mind rendered the order perverse, as authorities could not deny document presentation. Remanding for fresh consideration within six weeks with liberty for additional submissions, the Court clarified no merits adjudication, preserving GST authorities' probe while enforcing natural justice. Post-order differential tax payments underscored bona fides. The writ disposed of sans costs, reinforcing evidentiary scrutiny obligations in appeals.

The Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs M/s. Cognizant TechnologySolutions India Pvt ltdCITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2760

The Madras High Court quashed reassessment proceedings under Section 148 for AY 2002-03 against Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. as time-barred, upholding 60% depreciation entitlement on computer software claimed under the "computers" entry, accepted in original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) dated 17.03.2005. The legal issue challenged AO's 30.03.2009 notice alleging 25% rate post-AY 2003-04 amendment, with Revenue arguing limitation from 2007 Section 263 revision (unrelated to depreciation).

Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held full or true disclosure in return or financials precluded beyond-four-year reopening absent fresh material, counting limitation from original order. On merits, the Division Bench affirmed pre-2003-04 absence of separate software entry justified "computers" classification at 60%, consistently allowed in prior years and undisturbed by revision. Dismissing Revenue's appeal, it upheld ITAT, ruling reassessment impermissible on recycled facts post-scrutiny. No costs awarded.

SAMEER MALIK vs UNIONOF INDIA REPRESENTED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2761

The Gauhati High Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s Radhika Agarwal ruling, emphasizing that GST officers must strictly comply with BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) arrest procedures under Sections 35, 47, or 48 during GST Act, 2017 offences, any procedural lapse renders the arrest bad in law. In Sameer Malik’s bail application under Section 483 BNSS for Section 135 GST offences involving ₹8 crore fake ITC fraud via non-existent firms and invoices.

Justice Pranjal Das granted bail, noting the arrest notice under Section 35(3) BNSS contained a typographical error (appearance date after actual arrest), undermining procedural validity. The Court cited Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014, requiring investigating officers to justify non-issuance of appearance notice. While prosecution claimed permission under Section 69 GST, and argued notice error was clerical, the Court held compliance with criminal procedure is mandatory for revenue authorities, even if not trained police. Bail was granted with conditions: ₹1 lakh surety, no absconding, full cooperation, and no evidence tampering or witness influence. The judgment stressed ongoing procedural training for revenue officials to prevent technical defeats in genuine investigations.

M/S KRAZYBEE SERVICESPRIVATE LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,DGGI, BZU CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2762

The Karnataka High Court ruled that liquidated damages received for breach of contract are not taxable under GST, directing refund of ₹5 crore collected during investigation and paid under protest by KrazyBee Services Private Limited. The legal issue challenged the Directorate General of GST Intelligence's show cause notice proposing GST on compensation from lending service providers for contractual breach, with petitioner arguing such amounts are purely compensatory, not consideration for supply, per CBIC Circular dated 3.03.2022, paragraphs 7.1-7.1.6.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed no agreement to tolerate breach as a service, clarifying breach compensation cannot be treated as taxable consideration. Rejecting Revenue's "deficiency service fees" characterization, the Division Bench held show cause notice contrary to binding circular and quashed it. It directed refund of ₹5 crore plus interest within eight weeks, clarifying collection during investigation without adjudication is impermissible and not voluntary. The writ petition was allowed, reinforcing compensatory payments' non-taxability under GST.

Rajnandani ProjectsPvt. Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2763

The Patna High Court ruled that once an assessee proves the identity of the creditor and the banking trail, the Revenue cannot demand proof of the "source of the source" for additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Rajnandani Projects Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2015-16, the Court set aside the ITAT order restoring a ₹1.91 crore addition, restoring the CIT(A)'s deletion after examining confirmations, PAN details, bank statements, ledger accounts, and a remand report supporting the transaction's genuineness.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman observed that once debit entries in the creditor's account are established, the origin of funds in the creditor’s account becomes a Revenue investigation matter, not the assessee's burden. The High Court noted the ITAT did not find documents false or transactions sham, nor did it specify why the banking trail or remand report were insufficient. It held the Tribunal applied a higher evidentiary standard than Section 68 requires, placing an impermissible burden on the assessee. The Court restored the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the Revenue must investigate further if it disputes the creditor’s creditworthiness, not shift the burden to the assessee beyond statutory limits

Rajnandani ProjectsPvt. Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2763

The Patna High Court held that a creditor's creditworthiness cannot be disbelieved solely because they did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the relevant assessment year, when the identity of the creditor and the banking trail are established. In the case of Rajnandani Projects Pvt. Ltd., the Court restored the CIT(A)'s order deleting a Section 68 addition, overturning the ITAT's confirmation.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman observed that the assessee produced confirmations, PAN details, bank statements, ledger accounts, and the creditor’s ITRs for other years, with the transaction routed through banking channels, satisfying the requirements under Section 68. The Court clarified that while filing an ITR is a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole determinant of creditworthiness, especially when the transaction is genuine and the creditor's identity is undisputed. It emphasized that if the Revenue doubts the source, it must investigate further, not shift the burden to the assessee to prove the "source of the source" or the creditor's financial capacity beyond the evidence submitted.

M/S Bambino AgroIndustries Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2764

The Allahabad High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to electronic records and deemed receipt can be applied to determine valid service or communication of notices and orders under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The petitioners challenged adjudication orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, and the Central GST Act, 2017, contending that mere uploading of notices or orders on the GST Common Portal, along with automated email or SMS alerts, does not amount to proper communication as envisaged under Section 107 of the GST Act, which prescribes its own service mechanism under Section 169.

​

The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the GST Act’s service mechanism must be strictly followed and that the deeming provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot be imported to presume service or start the limitation period for filing appeals. The Court set aside the reliance on deemed receipt through electronic means, affirming that physical or proper service as per Section 169 of the GST Act is necessary for valid communication of notices and orders.

M/S LG ELECTRONICSINDIA P.LTD & ANR vs DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) &ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2765

The Delhi High Court addressed the legal issue of whether a portion of the ICC sponsorship fee paid by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. to a Singapore-based entity for the right to use the ICC trademark constituted royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), thereby requiring tax deduction at source at 15%. The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 195 concerning payments made for advertising and promotional rights in ICC cricket events, where the Assessing Officer and the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) held that one-third of the payment was for the use of ICC trademarks and thus taxable as royalty, while the remaining two-thirds related to advertising and was not taxable as such.

​

The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar upheld the order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, confirming that the right to use the ICC trademark was not incidental but substantive, and that the consideration paid for this right fell within the definition of royalty under both the Income Tax Act and the DTAA. The Court observed that the revisional authority had already granted significant relief by excluding two-thirds of the payment from royalty taxation and found no serious challenge to the apportionment method. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the order and the requirement to deduct tax at source at 15% on the royalty portion.

M/s Shivalik ContainersPvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner& Another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2768

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act cannot be denied to a recipient solely because the supplier initially failed to pay tax, provided the supplier subsequently discharges the liability with applicable interest. The case involved M/s Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd., which challenged a Section 74 order demanding ₹16,72,140 for non-payment of tax by its supplier, for which ITC had been claimed.

​

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur set aside the impugned Section 74 order and directed the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Nahan, to re-open and re-adjudicate the matter strictly in accordance with the GST Act. The Court ordered that the Assistant Commissioner must either accept the ITC claim or determine the liability afresh, with the final decision to be taken on or before 31st January 2026. The Court observed that once the supplier filed pending returns and paid the tax with interest, the ITC became available to the recipient, and the department could not sustain the denial merely on account of the initial delay. The Court emphasized that the authority does not have the jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the ITC claim unless directed by the Court, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

Debapriya Chatterjee vsThe State of West Bengal & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2769

The Calcutta High Court restored the Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal of Debapriya Chatterjee, a senior citizen, who failed to track GST notices uploaded in the ‘Additional Notices’ Tab of the GST portal. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, which dismissed his statutory appeal on grounds of delay. ​

Justice Om Narayan Rai, considering the petitioner’s age and technological limitations, held that the circumstances warranted an opportunity for the appeal to be decided on merits. The Court set aside the appellate authority’s order and directed that the appeal be restored, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹15,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks.

ZSCALER INC vs DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2770

The Delhi High Court quashed the Assessing Officer’s (AO) order imposing an 8.75% withholding tax on software receipts received by Zscaler Inc., a US-based technology company, from Indian clients. The AO had issued the order under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on earlier assessment orders that attributed 25% of Zscaler’s Indian revenues to a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) through its Indian subsidiary. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had already set aside these assessment orders, holding that the Indian subsidiary did not constitute a DAPE, thereby undermining the AO’s basis for the withholding tax.

The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameshwar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that Section 197 certificates must be based on a prima facie assessment of facts and law, and cannot rely solely on past assessments invalidated by higher appellate authorities. The Court observed that, absent a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, Zscaler’s software receipts could not be taxed as business income, and following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence v. CIT (2021), such receipts do not constitute royalty under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

ARYANSH ALLOYS THROUGHITS PROP CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2771

The Delhi High Court ruled that a GST show cause notice and demand order for the period July 2017 to March 2018 could not be sustained, as they were uploaded under the "Additional Notices" tab on the GST portal, which was not clearly visible at the time, denying Aryansh Alloys proper opportunity for personal hearing.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that the petitioner lacked a fair hearing opportunity due to the blank personal hearing column in the notice and unclear portal visibility, violating natural justice principles. The court set aside the demand order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, granted time till 31.01.2026 for reply, directed proper personal hearing notice via email and mobile, and left notification validity open pending Supreme Court outcome.

Dinesh InfraprojectsPrivate Limited &Anr. Vs. The Union ofIndia &Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2772

The Calcutta High Court addressed the prolonged pendency of a statutory income tax appeal filed against an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a writ petition by Dinesh Infraprojects Private Limited and another petitioner. The appeal, filed before the appellate authority, remained undecided for over two years despite complaints of delay and adjustments by Revenue Authorities of refundable sums exceeding outstanding tax demands for assessment years 2021 to 2025.

Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that the two-year delay in disposing of the statutory appeal was undesirable, warranting judicial intervention for expeditious resolution, and directed the appellate authority to decide it preferably within eight weeks from the order's communication. The court refused a mandatory refund order for adjusted amounts, noting no stay of demand request, but allowed petitioners to seek relief via representation to the authority for due consideration. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Chanda Construction& Anr vs The State of West Bengal &Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2773

The Calcutta High Court condoned the delay in filing a GST appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, against an order passed under Section 73, where petitioners Chanda Construction & Anr. challenged the Appellate Authority's dismissal order dated solely on grounds of delay without reasons.

Justice Om Narayan Rai accepted the working partner's serious illness as a valid cause for the marginal delay, supported by documentary evidence, and held that the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting condonation without disbelieving the facts or assigning reasons, thereby depriving the petitioners of their appellate forum. The court set aside the impugned order, restored the appeal for fresh merits adjudication, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

M/S TRUESPICES INDIAINC vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2744

The Delhi High Court examined the Customs Department's reliance on a second CRCL report issued without drawing fresh samples from exported tobacco products like pan masala and mouth fresheners, in a writ petition by Truespices India Inc. seeking finalization of shipping bills and release of bank guarantees provided for provisional clearance. the dispute involved provisional export procedures where initial CRCL reports found no issues, yet a later report reclassified the goods as gutka-like, prompting a hold on IGST refunds without a show cause notice.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted the lack of clarity on the second CRCL report's basis, absence of fresh sampling, and undecided representations by Customs, directing the Commissioner to decide the bank guarantee release and issue any show cause notice. The court disposed of the petition without merits, emphasizing holistic consideration to prevent impact on future exports while preserving all parties' rights and contentions.

K. SUNIL KUMAR vs UNIONOF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2775

The Kerala High Court ruled that an NCLT order rejecting a resolution plan during the Corporate InsolvencyResolution Process (CIRP) of Kasargod Power Corporation Limited is appealable under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), barring writ jurisdiction for MMS Steel & Power Private Limited and K. Sunil Kumar.

The Division Bench of Justice Viju Abraham held that Section 61 provides a comprehensive statutory appeal remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against any Adjudicating Authority order, including rejection of resolution plans, while Section 31 empowers approval or rejection and Section 32 limits grounds only for approval appeals. The court disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to pursue NCLAT appeal with exclusion of High Court time from limitation and one-month interim protection continuation.

MANJIT SINGH DHALIWALvs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINTERNATIONAL TAXATION 01 NEW DELHI CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2776

The Delhi High Court refused to condone a nearly five-year delay in filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) for assessment year 2020-21 by senior citizen NRI Manjit Singh Dhaliwal, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)'s rejection under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that cited reasons—ignorance of tax rules, prior health issues and surgeries, and COVID-19 travel restrictions did not constitute "genuine hardship," as ITRs can be filed online globally and legal deadlines demand strict compliance absent exceptional proof. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming no loss to revenue but emphasizing that lack of awareness or general hardships insufficiently justify extended delays in statutory filings.

Financial Technologies(India) Limited vs State of Maharashtra CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2777

The Bombay High Court permitted transfer of ₹84 crore with accrued interest from court deposit to a Settlement Account under a Scheme of Arrangement approved by the NCLT Mumbai, for National Spot Exchange Limited, and quashed 2015 criminal proceedings in a Criminal Writ Petition by Financial Technologies (India) Limited (now 63 Moons Technologies Limited).

The Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Manjusha Deshpande held that the NCLT-approved scheme accounted for pending civil and criminal proceedings, including those before the High Court and Supreme Court, with support from Economic Offences Wing under Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. The court allowed the interim application to facilitate scheme implementation for creditors and investors, quashed the 2015 notice in justice's interest, directed Registry transfer within stipulated time, and disposed of the writ petition with connected applications.

Vikram Solar Limited vsState of West Bengal&Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2778

The Calcutta High Court refused to direct the State to issue a clarificatory circular on exemption of entry tax for SEZ units' procurement of goods under West Bengal State tax laws, in a writ petition by Vikram Solar Limited seeking consideration of its representation dated October 13, 2025.

Justice concurred with the State that the SEZ entry tax exemption issue, raised before the Taxation Tribunal with assessment orders stayed, was sub-judice before the Supreme Court, rendering a mandamus for clarification impermissible to avoid conflicting with apex court proceedings. The court granted liberty for authorities to consider and dispose of the representation expeditiously without violating Supreme Court orders, abstained from merits opinion, and disposed of the writ petition directing parties to await Supreme Court decision.

UNITED SPIRITS LTD. vsAdditional Commissioner of State Tax-II& Appellate Authority, South Goa CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2779

The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) upheld the levy of interest under Section 25(4) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (GVAT Act) on delayed payment of VAT for sales of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA)/Rectified Spirit (RS)/High Bouquet Spirit (HBS) in F.Y. 2019-20, despite timely filing of returns by United Spirits Ltd., as tax due on the 28th of each month was paid belatedly.

Justice Ashish S. Chavan and Justice Bharati Dangre distinguished between return filing and tax payment timelines, holding that returns without timely tax payment are invalid under GVAT Act, triggering automatic statutory interest from due date irrespective of post-GST confusion on ENA/HBS taxability. The bench rejected arguments of bona fide delay due to unsettled law, noting the assessee collected VAT from buyers, was aware of liability from prior assessments, and that legal confusion cannot defer statutory due dates, dismissing the writ petition.

M/s 63 Moons TechnologiesLimited vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2780

The Bombay High Court is considering whether PMLA attachments on assets of M/s 63 Moons Technologies Limited linked to the 2013 National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) payment default should continue, given the NCLT-approved ₹1,950 crore settlement scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 for affected traders.

The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Shyam C. Chandak noted the NCLT scheme's mechanism for claim settlement acknowledging PMLA proceedings, but recognized NCLT clarifications that scheme approval does not override attachments or terminate criminal cases without court orders. The court refrained from immediate release directions, granted time for Enforcement Directorate instructions, and directed re-notification of the interim application challenging Appellate Tribunal order under Section 42 of PMLA, keeping all issues open.

TC Tours Limited vsUnion Territory of J&K and ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2781

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a GST appeal under Section 107 of the J&K GST Act cannot be rejected solely for non-filing of a hard copy, where TC Tours Limited filed an online appeal on 27.08.2021 within the statutory period against a demand order under Section 73 confirming over ₹17 lakh ITC mismatch for F.Y. 2019-20.

Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that neither Section 107 nor Rule 108 mandates hard copy submission for electronic appeals, and Rule 108 amendments via S.O 104 removed certified copy requirements when orders are GST portal-uploaded, rendering rejection unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned appellate order, directed fresh adjudication per GST Act mandates, and noted authorities could have granted time for compliance instead of dismissing on hyper-technical grounds violating natural justice.

S. S. CivilConstruction Private Limited vs AssistantCommissioner of Revenue CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2782

The Calcutta High Court held that GST authorities cannot continue bank attachment or recovery proceedings once statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the GST Act, 2017 is made, in a writ petition by S. S. Civil Construction Private Limited challenging recovery of ₹2.76 crore after dismissal of its Section 107 appeal against the department's order.

Justice Om Narayan Rai ruled that Section 112(9) automatically stays recovery for the balance amount upon 10% pre-deposit, rendering continued bank attachment unjustified, and directed lifting of attachment within two weeks of deposit while deeming further proceedings stayed. The court addressed fears of additional account attachments, clarified no further risk post-deposit, and permitted appeal filing before the GST Appellate Tribunal upon its functionality.

M/S. IPROCESS CLINICALMARKETING PVT LTD. vs ASST. COMMISSIONEROF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2783

The Karnataka High Court held that clinical trial services provided by IProcess Clinical Marketing Private Limited to foreign clients during April 2018 to March 2019 qualify as export of services under Section 13(2) of the IGST Act, quashing the GST adjudication order and appellate order that treated them as taxable domestic supplies.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that recipients were located outside India, making place of supply their location, and ruled Notification No. 04/2019-Integrated Tax dated 30.09.2019 clarificatory per 37th GST Council recommendations, applicable retrospectively despite authorities' prospective application claim. The court set aside both orders, holding no GST liability on such pharmaceutical R&D services including clinical trials exported abroad, and allowed the writ petition.

IQVIA RDS vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2784

The Karnataka High Court held that data management services provided by IQVIA RDS (India) Private Limited to its US-based affiliate IQVIA Holdings Inc. under a Master Service Agreement qualify as export of services, quashing GST orders treating them as intra-State supplies.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that the May 4, 2018 circular specifies the place of supply for software-related services including data management, development, testing, and modification as the recipient's location outside India. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside GST demands on these exported services, and left all other petitioner issues open without opinion.

AMARA RAJA BATTERIESLIMITED vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ANDOTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2785

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a 100% penalty under Section 129 of the MP GST Act against Amara Raja Batteries Limited for incorrect destination city (Indore instead of Jabalpur) in the E-way bill for batteries transported from Ahmedabad warehouse on 26.02.2019, despite paid IGST/SGST of Rs. 2,17,305.

Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed that the vehicle passed Indore en route to Bhopal without correction, distinguishing it from minor address errors covered by CBIC circular dated 14.09.2018 Clause 5(c), as this involved an entirely different city with no proof of genuine intent. The court dismissed the writ petition against the notice and appeal order, holding the mistake was not clerical given transit opportunity to rectify and GST officers' reliance on E-way bill for goods tracking.

M/s. A.D. ElectrosteelCo. Pvt. Ltd. and another vs Union ofIndia and others. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2786

The Calcutta High Court refused to stay income tax demand notices under Section 156 for A.Y. 2012-13 against A.D. Electrosteel Co. Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee proposed installment payments of outstanding dues including Rs. 8,73,40,410/- with interest under Section 220(2).

Justice Om Narayan Rai noted the ITAT appeal remains unrestored despite the Division Bench order on May 6, 2025 permitting restoration application, and accepted departmental evidence of petitioner's October 17, 2025 email undertaking monthly payments from November 20, 2025, leading to bank account attachment lift. The court directed a decision on Section 220(6) stay application within four weeks, clarified no automatic demand stay from its order, permitted independent departmental recovery actions, and disposed of the writ petition.

TAPI READY PLAST vsSTATE OF GUJARAT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2787

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of a GST appeal under Section 107 filed by M/s Tapi Ready Plast with a delay of 2 months and 16 days beyond the three-month statutory period plus one-month condonation window, against an Order-in-Original following a show cause notice under Section 73 for F.Y. 2018-19 under-declared outward supplies.

Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that Section 107(4) permits Appellate Authority to condone delay only up to one additional month upon sufficient cause, with no power beyond the aggregate five-month maximum, referencing Supreme Court precedents in Glaxo Smith Kline (2020) and Singh Enterprises (2007). The court characterized the accountant's illness and business closure as "lame excuses" insufficient to invoke Limitation Act discretion or override statutory limits, refused interference, and upheld the Appellate Authority's April 23, 2025 rejection order.

Beena Parihar vsCentral Bureau of Investigation/Anti Corruption CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2788

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, refused to discharge Beena Parihar as co-accused in a CBI anti-corruption case under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, where a new GST registration obtained post-contractor Ajit Kumar Singh's death on 30.01.2021 enabled clearance of Rs. 37,11,709 railway payment to Chauhan Constructions on 14.01.2022.

Justice Saurabh Lavania held that at discharge stage, unrebutted record evidence including proprietorship takeover, fresh GST registration, addendum entry in railway records, payment receipt, and Rs. 30 lakh transfer to joint firm with co-accused husband sufficiently indicated coordination and conspiracy involvement. The court dismissed the criminal revision, finding no interference warranted as detailed evidence appraisal impermissible pre-trial, and directed proceedings to continue per law.

M/s EastmanInternational vs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2789

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that Condition No. 6(ii) of Notification No. 50/2023-Customs dated 25.08.2023 requiring irrevocable letters of credit for export duty exemption on parboiled rice does not apply to exporters like Eastman International who realize proceeds through cash-on-delivery, quashing the levy of ₹2,01,28,295 duty on consignments entered ICD CONCOR Naya Raipur pre-cutoff.

ChiefJustice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that export via LoC lacks statutory mandate, invoking lex non cogit ad impossibilia as non-LoC exporters cannot retrospectively comply, rejecting conjunctive reading of clauses (i) and (ii) as mechanical and violative of Article 14 equality. The court directed refund with interest within eight weeks, noting the condition's temporary nature till 15.10.2023 served protective purposes already fulfilled by realized proceeds, leaving broader constitutional challenges open without costs.

M/S EXCELPOINT SYSTEMS(INDIA) PVT LTD vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2790

The Karnataka High Court held that marketing support and technical support services provided by Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. to its Singapore group company Excelpoint Systems Pte. Ltd. under an agreement qualify as zero-rated export of services under GST law, not intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that the petitioner rendered support services on a principal-to-principal basis without arranging or facilitating supplies between the foreign entity and its customers, distinguishing it from intermediary activities involving three-party transactions. The court set aside the Assistant Commissioner's refund rejection and Joint Commissioner's appellate upholding for April 2021-March 2022 claiming Rs. 18,92,697 ITC refund, applied prior judgments including Amazon and Columbia Sportswear, directed refund with interest within three months, and allowed the writ petition.

MADAN LAL vs UNION OFINDIA AND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2791

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) holds exclusive jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rendering notices by jurisdictional Assessing Officers invalid under the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless scheme compliance.

Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta disposed of Madan Lal's petition challenging the Section 148 notice, following the precedent in Jatinder Singh Bhangu where similar notices were set aside. The court affirmed that Sections 144B, 151A with the notification establish faceless applicability from notice issuance stage, rejecting jurisdictional AO authority as circulars cannot override unambiguous statutory provisions.

M/S RAMMS INDIA PRIVATELIMITED vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFCOMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2792

The Karnataka High Court ruled that GST authorities cannot raise demands or recover dues through Form GST DRC-13 from an independent third-party company like M/s Ramms India Private Limited merely due to common directors with the defaulting taxpayer XRMPL, as corporate separateness prevails absent garnishee status.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held that distinct juristic entities under the Companies Act require independent assessment and recovery proceedings, rejecting common directorship as insufficient basis to lift the corporate veil or invoke garnishee action against Ramms for XRMPL's Section 73 dues. The court quashed the recovery of Rs. 24.73 lakhs from petitioner's bank account, directed refund with interest following precedent in SJ Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd., and clarified no legal authority exists for such inter-company liability transfer.

AKRAM PASHA vs ENIORINTELLIGENCE OFFICER DGGI CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2793

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to Akram Pasha, proprietor of a steel trading concern accused of fraudulent availment and passing of fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) through bogus invoices, holding that custodial interrogation is not mandatory for offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act punishable by up to five years imprisonment.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed that GST offences are compoundable under Section 138 except specified circumstances, diluting their heinousness despite economic nature, and records like transactions and returns on GST portal reduce arrest necessity post-DGGI summonses under Section 70. The court distinguished from P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, ruling arrests not default for bail decisions, imposed Rs. 5 lakhs bond with conditions requiring cooperation, as departmental information obtainable without custody.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -7 vs M/S TCK ADVISERS PVT. LTD. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2794

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against an ITAT order upholding the Dispute Resolution Panel's exclusion of comparables in a transfer pricing adjustment for TCK Advisers Pvt. Ltd., due to a 1285-day unexplained delay in re-filing.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that condonation of delay requires reasonable explanation covering the entire period, which revenue failed to provide despite procedural lapse. The court found no substantial question of law in DRP/ITAT's detailed factual analysis and dismissed on both delay and merits grounds.

SANDEEPA VIRK vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2795

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Sandeepa Virk in a money laundering case stemming from a 2016 Mohali FIR alleging Rs. 6 crore fraud for a film role, where ED registered ECIR in August 2025 nearly nine years later and arrested her swiftly despite main accused Amit Gupta remaining a proclaimed offender.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma noted relaxed PMLA bail conditions for women, completed investigation, petitioner's months-long custody, Rs. 2.7 crore partial restitution, and lack of charge-sheeting in prior proceedings, rejecting ED claims of evidence destruction amid delayed ECIR filing. The court imposed conditions including passport surrender, investigation cooperation, and non-influence of witnesses, clarifying observations limited to bail without prejudice to trial merits.

SL GOLDEN PAPTECH PVTvs THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTORGENERAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2796

The Delhi High Court permitted operation of SL Golden Paptech Pvt Limited's attached bank account maintaining a minimum Rs. 50 lakhs balance, balancing revenue protection against GST fraud allegations with petitioner's business continuity needs.

Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted absence of show cause notice, unquantified Rs. 17.92 crores alleged liability (Rs. 8.96 crores tax plus penalty/interest), missing 2020-2023 data from search, but acknowledged petitioner's Rs. 2 crores deposit (25% of tax) and attached properties including Rs. 1.2 crores bank balance. The court granted partial operational relief absent formal quantification, protecting revenue while enabling business operations post-search findings.

HARSATINDER PAL SINGHHAYER vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2797

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer, former director implicated in the ₹48,000 crore PACL Ltd. illegal investment scheme, finding both PMLA Section 45 twin conditions and general triple test satisfied in the case originating from a 2014 CBI FIR.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted the applicant's late addition via May 2025 second supplementary complaint despite 2016 ECIR and prior charge sheets/prosecution complaints omitting him, with most fund transfers predating his directorship and family ties as sole linkage. The court rejected ED opposition citing completed documentary investigation, applicant's consistent cooperation including court-permitted foreign travel, lack of flight risk, and absence of compelling late-stage March 2025 arrest justification, granting bail without specified conditions detailed.

Arsha Vidya ParamparaTrust vs The Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2798

The Madras High Court ruled that Section 12A charitable recognition under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust cannot be negated under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), setting aside rejection of its FCRA registration application.

Justice GR Swaminathan held the first rejection ground unsustainable as foreign fund receipt violations were compounded via Rs. 3,70,500 payment, wiping the slate clean, with no prior notice on alleged fund transfers violating natural justice. The court rejected the religious nature claim, citing Bhagavad Gita's philosophical status per Allahabad High Court precedent, Vedanta as ancestral philosophy, and yoga's universality, reinforced by ITAT's Section 12A charitable status persisting under FCRA Section 52. The impugned order was quashed with directions for reconsideration within three months.

PHX ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD vs COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISECITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2799

The Delhi High Court identified a policy gap between Section 67(6) of the CGST Act and Rule 140(1) of CGST Rules regarding provisional release of seized goods in suspected GST evasion cases like PHX Electronics Pvt. Ltd.'s ₹1.34 crore televisions and motherboards, referring the issue to the GST Council for resolution.

Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted Section 67(6)'s flexibility for bond/security or tax-interest-penalty payment contrasts Rule 140's strict bank guarantee requirement for unquantified demands, creating practical infeasibility during prolonged pre-adjudication despite SCN mention of release option. The court directed placing the matter before GST Council for suitable mechanisms accommodating perishable/depreciating goods, refrained from merits adjudication amid jurisdictional disputes, ordered SCN reply submission, and CBIC copy-sharing without quashing the Section 130 notice.

M/S. BHARTI AIRTELLIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2800

The Kerala High Court quashed the assessment order against Bharti Airtel under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), ruling that SIM cards, recharge coupons, fixed monthly charges, and value-added services like SMS, ringtones, and music downloads do not qualify as "goods" subject to KVAT.

Justice Dr. AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that merger principles inapplicable as prior Division Bench reserved statutory remedies liberty, directly applying Supreme Court affirmed Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) classifying such telecom services outside VAT goods definition. The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside KVAT demands on these items despite Section 25(1) limitation disputes, rejecting State's distinction attempts as futile against binding precedent without further appeal.