The Madras High Court has ruled that gold bars weighing more than 1 kilogram are prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, denying the petitioners' request for redemption of confiscated gold under Section 125 of the Act.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that, in the present case, all the authorities below had consistently held that the petitioners were not entitled to the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation.

The High Court of Delhi observed that the dispute, in which the lawyer allegedly withheld the gold citing unpaid dues, was a private dispute between the petitioner and his lawyer and referred the matter to mediation.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav was present and stated that he had been in continuous contact with the petitioner’s relatives and had assisted in obtaining documents from the Bureau of Immigration for the petitioner’s emergency certificate. He further stated that the gold bars were in his possession and that he was willing to return them upon clearance of his dues.

The Madras High Court has directed the customs authorities to reconsider a duty drawback recovery order, which was issued after more than 3 years holding that the adjudication was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose, despite having the legal precedent of the same court which ruled that the claims beyond 3 years shall be unsustainable, chose to reconsider the matter by protecting the revenue and also ensuring the fair hearing to the petitioner.

The High Court of Delhi, in a matter concerning the classification of imported e-rickshaw consignments, reduced the pre-deposit to ₹5.5 lakh and directed Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) to hear the petitioner’s and its Director’s appeals on merits.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain considered the 12th March 2014 office order, which stated that five key components: transmission, motor, axle, chassis, and controller together made a complete e-rickshaw in CKD/SKD form, classifiable under heading 8703. If along with the motor, any two of these parts were missing, the goods would be treated as parts under heading 8708 and not attract the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In a recent ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an order passed without giving reasons cannot be sustained in law. The court ruled that such an order is not valid and cannot be used to reopen an income tax assessment.

The Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the material on record. The court pointed out that it is not enough to say that a matter needs more examination. The officer is expected to give reasons before moving forward.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with a show cause notice issued to a Chartered Accountant and a trader who had previously been arrested during a fake firm investigation.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the petitioners themselves had acknowledged their connections with the individuals named in the investigation.

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa held that a Chartered Accountant who appears before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as an authorised representative is not automatically entitled to receive the Tribunal’s final order on behalf of the assessee, unless specifically authorised.

The bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta pointed out that the Income Tax Act allows assessees to be represented by authorised representatives, including Chartered Accountants, but it specifically requires the Tribunal to communicate its final order directly to the assessee.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the bail application of a 21-year-old accused of orchestrating a multi-crore GST fraud spread across various states. The Court, while denying bail, underscored the gravity of the offence, the pan-India scale of fraudulent operations, and the risk to the ongoing investigation.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, after considering submissions from both sides, cited the seriousness of the allegations and the calculated manner in which the fraud was allegedly perpetrated. The Court observed that the accused’s actions creating and operating multiple fake firms to siphon off government revenue appeared to be part of a deep-rooted conspiracy carried out with a calculated design for personal profit.

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a complex Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case involving the creation of fake business entities using the identity credentials of a Chartered Accountant.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the accused had been in custody for nearly eight months, while charges were yet to be framed and the trial was yet to commence. The chargesheet stated as many as 23 prosecution witnesses, indicating a protracted trial process.

The Gujarat High Court has allowed the refund of Compensation Cess on unutilized Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) arising from inward supplies used for generating captive power.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi accepted the petitioner’s submissions. The court, relying on the precedent in Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, clarified that exporters who pay Compensation Cess on inputs but not on outputs are eligible for refund of such unutilized ITC, regardless of whether the export is made under bond/LUT or on payment of IGST.

The Madras High Court quashed a series of GST (Goods and Services Tax) orders issued under Notification No. 56/2023 Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, deeming the notification arbitrary, ultra vires, and void.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the impugned notification, issued under Section168A of the CGST Act, 2017, could not validly extend the limitation period for issuing orders under Section 73 without any exceptional circumstances.

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), directing the refund of ₹7.98 crore to M/s Raymond Apparel Ltd, reiterating that limitation does not apply for the duties paid under protest.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) , while dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata, rejected the department’s challenge to the refund on grounds of limitation and alleged failure to reassess or modify the assessments.

“Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them” ruled the Jharkhand High Court. While invalidating the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appellate order, it said that orders passed without giving reasons are unsustainable.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad emphatically held that every judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative order must disclose the rationale behind the decision.

The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( KVAT ) is not leviable on advertisement hoardings , as there was no transfer of right to use hoardings in favour of third parties.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A observed that the obligations of the petitioner include erection and maintenance of the hoardings. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the charges collected by the petitioner for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance etc.

In a recent order, the Gauhati High Court has made absolute the interim bail earlier granted to a trader from Assam, who was accused in connection with a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) matter.

The bench decided to confirm the interim relief. The interim bail granted on 26.06.2025 was made absolute, with a clear direction that the petitioner must continue to cooperate fully with the investigation, including appearing whenever summoned and providing all the relevant documents as previously instructed.

MALIKTRADERSTHROUGHITSPROPRIETORvs THEPRINCIPAL COMMISISONEROFCENTRALTAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1583

The Delhi High Court recently permitted a business entity alleged to have fraudulently availed Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) to duly contest an adjudication order and allied Show-Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued to them before the appellate authority.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the impugned order was appealable, and that the grounds raised by the petitioner could be agitated before the appellate authority.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court has clarified that taxpayers whose bank accounts are frozen due to GST (Goods and Services Tax) proceedings must first approach the designated GST authorities before seeking judicial intervention.

Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi observed that the hardship caused to the petitioners due to the account freeze, it would not be appropriate to bypass the statutory mechanism provided under the GST Act.

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an individual who challenged a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order on the ground that his turnover was below the ₹20 lakh threshold, exempting him from registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The bench allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate forum within two months. Also, it directed the Appellate Authority to consider condoning the delay in filing the appeal by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and to decide the matter within three months of receiving the appeal.

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) admitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee due to oversight and high pendency of cases.

After hearing both sides, the bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury explained that the reason given by the department was not sufficient to justify the denial of a hearing, but the apology appeared to be sincere. The court quashed the order dated 17 March 2025 as it was passed in breach of both natural justice and the court’s earlier directions.

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot issue a notice in the name of a deceased person when the legal heir has already come forward and been recognised in an earlier court order.

The bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury pointed out that this explanation was not acceptable. The court stated that since the earlier order in 2022 had been passed in the name of the petitioner and had acknowledged the death of Chiranjilal Agarwala, the assessing officer ought to have proceeded against the legal heir instead of repeating the same mistake.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that the National Financial Reporting Authority ( NFRA ) has the power to issue directions under Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, but it does not have the authority to monitor whether those directions are followed by companies.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that NFRA had already passed an order in March 2023 and there is a mechanism available under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The court directed the petitioner to seek information about follow-up action under the RTI route.

The Delhi High Court was recently met with a plea by a petitioner who stated it was unable to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the department had not uploaded the amended DRC-07 form on the portal within the deadline for availing the scheme.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the corrigendum had finally adjudicated the SCN and thus modified the Order-in-Original, and in such event, the revised DRC-07 reflecting the updated demand amount ought to have been uploaded on the portal.

The Orissa High Court has condoned a 15-day delay in filing an income tax appeal caused by an inadvertent miscalculation of the limitation period by tax authorities. The order, dated July 29, 2025, came in response to an application by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Sambalpur, challenging an ITAT order from October 2023 in the case of assessee Jay Kishore Choubey.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman found the department’s explanation reasonable, noting the administrative transfer of documents between offices contributed to the miscalculation. The court referenced established judicial principles that technicalities should not override substantive justice when delays are minimal and adequately explained.

The Orissa High Court has provided conditional relief to a petitioner who filed a delayed appeal under the GST laws, directing the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount within a week to proceed with the case.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.R. Pathak, noted that while the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act was not yet operational, the petitioner could not be left without a remedy. However, the court emphasized that statutory conditions for filing an appeal must still be met, even in writ proceedings. Referring to the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8), the court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax within a week.

The Gauhati High Court has directed the restoration of a businessman’s GST registration after it was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.

The order was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi who emphasized that this direction was made in the interest of justice regardless of the earlier dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal.

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently reaffirmed that the State and Central authorities of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department cannot simultaneously initiate proceedings on the same subject matter, as barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Court upheld a ₹120.09 crore demand issued by Central GST authorities under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) against South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) - a mining company which is the largest coal producing company in India.

The court clearly clarified that digital marketing is a business for persons who carry out the said activities. Merely because digital marketing is carried on the business through computers, it cannot be treated as a profession, said the Madras High Court while restoring the audit exemption under Section 44AB(a) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 to a digital marketing business.

Justice Krishnan Ramasmay observed that the use of computers or digital tools does not transform a business into a profession. It was observed that, “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. Merely because it is carried on through computers, it cannot be treated as a profession.”

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of a 2014 amendment to the MaharashtraEntertainments Duty Act that allows the State to levy entertainment duty on online ticket booking convenience fees exceeding Rs. 10 per ticket.

The court held that such charges, when above the prescribed limit, form part of the “payment for admission” and can be included in the measure of entertainment duty.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in a recent case held that the process of extinguishment of Debt under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 would not ipso facto apply to extinguishment of criminal proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act(NI Act).

A single bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts is quite different and would not intercede with each other. In fact, a bare reading of Section 14 IBC would make it clear that the nature of proceedings which have to be kept in abeyance do not include criminal proceedings, which is the nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The Delhi High Court has held that notice sent invoking the arbitration agreement under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is valid invocation and viewed that there was no requirement for the Petitioner to resort to Clause 25(c) of GTC to formally notify the ICA for appointment of the arbitrator.

A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that there was no requirement for the Petitioner to resort to Clause 25(c) of GTC to formally notify the ICA for appointment of the Arbitrator and the notice sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent on 13.09.2024, invoking arbitration agreement under Section 21 of 1996 Act is valid invocation.

The Madras High Court has confirmed that the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ( ADGCEI ) cannot issue a show cause notice ( SCN ) in customs matters without a clear and specific conferment of territorial jurisdiction in the enabling notification.

While dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, the Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) decision quashing the SCN issued against importers of used photocopier components.

The Bench interpreted Section 83 to mean that the “life of a provisional attachment order is only for a period of one year and thereafter it attains its natural demise and loses its effect.” Since no successive attachment order had been issued after February 2021, the attachment stood terminated in law. The court, ruling that the petitioner’s account “in the eye of the law, stands detached/unfrozen,” allowed him to operate it freely. At the same time, it made it clear that the order would not prevent the bank from pursuing lawful recovery steps under the SARFAESI Act, nor did it decide on the merits of any tax liability arising from reversal of credit orders passed by the GST authorities.

Madras HC Condones 1-Day Delay in GST Appeal Filing Caused by Non-Notification of Ex Parte Assessment Order on Portal

The Madras High Court condoned a one-day delay in the filing of a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal, holding that the petitioner’s reason for missing the deadline was genuine.

The Court found that the reasons for the delay were genuine and set aside the rejection order. It condoned the delay of one day in filing the appeal and directed the first respondent to take the appeal on record and adjudicate it on merits.

Punjab & Haryana HC stays Proceedings under SARFAESI Act, till next hearing, subject to Depositing a sum of Rs.10 L

In a recent case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana stayed the Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) till next date of hearing subject to depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000.

Counsel for respondent No.1-Bank informs that the loan account has been regularized and the assurance of the petitioners-borrowers of paying the rescheduled installments in the future has been accepted. The rival parties are free to indulge in any kind of settlement in future by way of mediation or otherwise, failing which the petitioners-borrowers are free to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery

Compounding Application Made under FEMA in Completion of Adjudication Process is not Maintainable: Calcutta HC

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has held that Ca ompounding Application made under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) in the Completion of the adjudication process is not maintainable.

The bench held that the second application for compounding, affirmed on 6th May 2024 and filed on 10th May 202,4 was rightly rejected by the compounding authority, holding, inter alia, that the adjudication order had already been passed by the adjudicating authority with respect to the contravention applied for in the compounding application. The court upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.

High Courts cannot interfering in SARFAESI proceedings: Punjab & Haryana HC directs to avail remedy before DRAT

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the assessee to avail remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) holding that High Courts cannot interfering in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 proceedings.

The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor found that the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and/or DRAT.The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. Further disposed of the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits.

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that the onus to prove payments to sundry creditors within 180 days before the GST authorities lies with the company, even if the audit team did not specifically request such records.

Tara Lohia Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2022. The show cause notice was issued on 1 August 2024 after an audit under Section 65, which contained several allegations.

Delay in Departmental Enquiry Cannot Hold Promotions: AP HC Orders to Consider Promotion of Commercial Tax Officer

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the failure of the authorities to conclude departmental proceedings within the mandated time limit cannot be used as a ground to indefinitely deny a right to promotion of a Commercial Tax Officer.

The bench directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s promotion in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, if he meets the eligibility criteria, and to conclude the enquiry within six months from receipt of the order. The court said that “The Disciplinary Authority as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay in concluding the enquiry within the time frame as mentioned above.”

Duplication of GST demand by Central Dept on Fake ITC: Delhi HC Refuses to Entertain Writ, Directs for Appeal

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order, passed by central GST authorities over alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) for the assessmentyear 2017-18, which was earlier proceeded by the state GST department.

However, relying on its earlier ruling in Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India, the Court stated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ordinarily exercised in cases of alleged fraudulent ITC availment, given the need for detailed factual analysis and the existence of an appellate mechanism. While dismissing the writ, the Court directed the petitioner to appeal by August 31, 2025. The court also instructed the department not to reject the appeal and time-barred and shall be decided on the merits.

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, holding it to be unsustainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4).

The court noted that the delay in filing the appeal was marginal and that the denial of a hearing was an admitted fact; it held the adjudication order to be unsustainable in law. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits, with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the original show cause notice within two weeks. The bench also directed that the pre-deposit already made be retained to the credit of the proceedings and set aside the appellate authority’s order as a consequence.

The Calcutta High Court has restored former cricketer Sourav Ganguly’s GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal, quashing the appellate authority’s order dated 30 July 2024 that had rejected the appeal for alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under the State’s GST Amnesty Scheme.

Under the scheme notified on 2 November 2023, taxpayers were permitted to maintain appeals against orders passed on or before 31 March 2023 under Sections 73 or 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, provided they filed the appeal by 31 January 2024 and paid 12.5% of the disputed tax, with at least 20% of that amount through the electronic cash ledger.

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) waiver benefits and a direction to prevent deduction of GST and TDS under Sections 22 and 51(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, holding that the relief sought needed a factual determination not permissible in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Shankar Dutt Chandola and Another petitioners had prayed for a mandamus directing the authorities to clear pending dues by granting GST waiver and to refrain from deducting GST and TDS, claiming entitlement under the relevant statutory provisions.

The Allahabad High Court has held that a refund claim for Central GST ( CGST ) cannot be rejected merely because the amount was entered under the wrong tax head in the refund form.

The Court observed that such a technical error, even if caused by a software glitch or typographical mistake, does not justify denying a substantive right when entitlement to the refund is undisputed.

Factual Dispute on Custody Legal or Proper in Gold Smuggling Case not for Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC Directs to Remedy under BNSS

The Telangana High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the custody of the petitioner’s husband in a gold smuggling case, ruling that disputed questions of fact regarding the legality or propriety of the custody are not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

The Court ruled that it was improper for it to decide such disputed facts in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 after taking into account the allegations, the facts surrounding his apprehension, and the disagreements over the legitimacy of custody.

Sale of Late Mother's Flat for Multiple Residential Houses eligible for Income Tax S.54 Exemption: Bombay HC

In a significant ruling for homeowners and tax planners, the Bombay High Court has held that capital gains from the sale of a residential property-a flat inherited from the assessee’s late mother, can be fully sheltered under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.

Allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ITAT to the extent they denied full relief, and held the assessee entitled to exemption against the entire capital gains arising from the Mumbai flat’s sale, given the reinvestment into seven Pune row houses. For assessment years prior to AY 2015-16, taxpayers who sold a residential property and reinvested the gains in multiple residential units stand on firmer ground to claim Section 54 relief. Post-2014, however, the law restricts the benefit to investment in “one” residential house in India.

The Delhi High Court recently directed the absolute confiscation of goods and imposed penalties on a consignment whose consignee details were belatedly altered to reflect the Import Export Code (IEC) of the Petitioner herein.

The petitioner, Jyoti Enterprises, challenged an Order-in-Original dated March 27, 2025, passed by the Customs Department, which ordered the confiscation of a consignment on the ground of misdeclaration.

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently directed the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi to expedite adjudication in two Goods and Services Tax Appeals concerning a penalty demand and interest amounting to ₹2,33,91,504 amid allegations that the Petitioner was subject to threat and coercion by the authorities to effectuate recovery.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur recorded that the appeals were filed on February 13, 2025 and that no notice had yet been issued as of July 2025. The bench observed that, given the pendency of the statutory appeals and the allegations pertaining to recovery, the issue requires a time-bound decision by the appellate forum.

Calling it a “grave error” on part of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities, the Calcutta High Court has held that the department cannot recover an entire tax demand before the expiry of the statutory period allowed to the assessee for filing an appeal.

The Court noted that the statute explicitly permits taxpayers to maintain an appeal by depositing only 10% of the disputed tax from an adjudication order, and a further 10% from an appellate order when approaching the tribunal. Since the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, the Department could at most retain 20% of the disputed tax.

Calcutta HC Condemns Misusing Extraordinary Jurisdiction of HC for Delaying Revenue Deposit, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost on Company

The Calcutta High Court has strongly criticized the abuse of its extraordinary writ power under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of delaying statutory GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payments.

Justice Chowdhury held that “petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to delay the revenue deposit. However, since the petitioners do not wish to proceed with the writ petition and seek to withdraw the same, let the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the GST authorities.” The Court imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 to deter similar attempts in the future and directed that the amount be paid to the GST authorities.

The Calcutta High Court held that cancellation of GST ( Good and Services Tax ) registration for non-filing of GST returns without any allegation of tax evasion was counter-productive to revenue interests when the taxpayer is willing to continue its business. The court directed the restoration of registration subject to the payment of all statutory dues.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the cancellation order, subject to strict conditions. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns for the default period and pay the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks from receiving the server copy of the order.

Cancellation of GST Registration Counter-productive to Revenue: Calcutta HC orders Revival of Registration on Payment of all Dues

The Calcutta High Court held that cancellation of GST ( Good and Services Tax ) registration for non-filing of GST returns without any allegation of tax evasion was counter-productive to revenue interests when the taxpayer is willing to continue its business. The court directed restoration of registration subject to payment of all statutory dues.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the cancellation order, subject to strict conditions. The petitioner was directed to file all pending returns for the default period and pay the applicable tax, interest, penalty, and fine within four weeks from receiving the server copy of the order. If these conditions are met, the jurisdictional officer was instructed to restore the GST registration. However, it was clarified that if the petitioner fails to comply with all the instructions provided by the court, the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed and the order will not have any effect.

The buyer cannot be forced to pay the supplier's overdue GST (Goodsand Services Tax) payments, ruled the Calcutta High Court. It has instructed the GST department to recredit ₹1,67,974 to the buyer's credit ledger and ordered the supplier, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to pay its GST dues.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that BSNL had, in fact, given supplies to the petitioner and therefore could not escape its statutory responsibility to pay the due IGST/CGST. The Court stated that taxpayers should not be burdened with liabilities arising from their suppliers’ violations. The bench remitted the case to the appellate authority for review while setting aside the appellate order. Additionally, it directed that within two weeks, the ₹1,67,974 that had already been recovered be refunded to the petitioner's credit ledger.

The Calcutta High Court has held that while uploading a notice on the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) portal is deemed valid service under Section 169 of the GST Act, the mode and manner of such upload must follow general practice.

Additionally, the bench quashed the bank account attachment order, stating that in the given facts it could not be sustained.The petitioners had to file the appeal within the time limit provided in order for the tax department to enforce the initial demand, hence the benefit of this order was contingent upon that.

“Non-consideration of the contention amounts to denial of hearing”, said the Orissa High Court and set aside a service tax demand passed on an ex parte basis holding that failure to consider a taxpayer’s contention amounts to a denial of hearing.

The court, while allowing the petition, quashed the impugned order and restored the matter to the adjudicating authority. It directed the petitioner to submit a certified copy of the order along with its contention, following which the authority must pass a fresh order after due consideration.

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to the accused, who had fraudulently availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Goods and Services Tax (GST) of over Rs 10 crores by allegedly showing fictitious transactions. The accused applicant is ordered to be released on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety.

Sunil Hiralal Mandowara, the applicant has filed the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the offence registered with the Office of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ahmedabad.

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a challenge to an income tax demand based on an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable before the High Court.

Shri Samir Kundu, the petitioner questioned the legality, impropriety and justness of demand raised to the tune of Rs.1,23,78,764/- pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 [relevant to Financial Year 2019-20] by way of assessment framed under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court set aside the Income Tax Order deleting disallowance on share trading, citing the assessee’s failure to prove genuineness.

The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated September 23, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (tribunal) in ITA No. 553/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2014-2015 which was in favor of respondent assessee, Zulu Merchandise Private Limited.

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court directed the release of five iPhones seized by the Customs Department, noting that the continued detention had become untenable as no show cause notice (SCN) or Order-in-Original was issued even after a year from the seizure.

The petitioner, Yakin Yunus Patel had approached the Court seeking release of the detained goods which had been seized by the Customs at Indira Gandhi International Airport while he and his family members arrived in India from Hong Kong on May 3, 2024.

The Bombay High Court at Goa recently ruled in favour of Lupin Limited, holding that the company was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed refund of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) if the refund was not released within sixty days from the date of the First Appellate Authority’s ( FAA ) order.

The Court, after examining the sections and the facts, observed that the statutory mandate under Section 56 of the CGST Act is clear. Once the FAA’s order attains finality and directs the grant of refund, the revenue authorities are bound to comply within sixty days. Any delay beyond this period automatically triggers the liability to pay interest at 9%. Accordingly, the court directed that Lupin Limited be paid interest at 9% per annum from the sixty-first day after the FAA’s order until the date of actual refund.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against the petitioner in connection with an alleged extortion of ₹1.01 lakh through a Google Pay QR code.

The Court said that the handwritten bill produced by the petitioner lacked authenticity and that his plea of a bona fide transaction could only be tested during trial, not in quashing proceedings. The bench declined to intervene at this point and dismissed the petition seeking to quash FIR, stating that there was prima facie evidence indicating the petitioner's involvement.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot freeze bank accounts and records of an arraigned entity if the directorate has not passed an express order under Section 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Vikram Chaudhri, Hargun Sandhu, Rahul Bhargava, Diya Bhagwan and Alisha Sharda appearing for the petitioners contended that apart from the email intimation from the date of search and seizure made by the officer, the ED did not pass any order under Section 17(1-A) of the PMLA.

The Kerala High Court has held that the mere initiation of reassessment proceedings, which remain unfinalized, cannot be a ground to deny an assessee the benefits available under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. The judgment was rendered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. in the writ petitions filed by Kavumkal Road Builders.

Built for GST appeals—not theory, but what actually works in Tribunal. Click here

The petitioner, Kavumkal Road Builders, challenged the denial of relief under both the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the subsequent DTVSV Scheme, 2024, in relation to Assessment Year 2015-16. While their appeal against the original assessment order was pending, the government introduced both settlement schemes to resolve pending income tax disputes.

The Madras High Court has ordered the restoration of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration which had been cancelled due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns on time, citing medical reasons on payment of tax and interest without adjusting from unutilised Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The petitioner, Tvl.Tharaga and Co, represented by its partner, Mr. Sukumar Chandran, explained that he was suffering from Type II Diabetes Mellitus and, due to health issues, could not attend to statutory obligations, including the filing of monthly GST returns.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court, in a recent ruling, quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand of ₹1.02 crore raised against a company under liquidation, holding that amounts deposited into the electronic cash ledger by the liquidator must be treated as valid payment of tax liability, even if no returns filed.

Satyadevi Alamuri, Liquidator of G. B. Engineering Enterprises Private Limited represented for the petition. The GST authorities issued notices to the company for the period April 2019 to December 2019, leading in an order confirming a demand of ₹1,02,57,338, along with interest and penalties.

The Orissa High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order issued by the Additional State Tax Officer, holding that it amounted to double taxation.

The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman, noting this positing, held that the second demand was untenable in law as it led to double taxation. It said that “On the conceded position as aforesaid, this Court cannot, therefore, sustain the order dated 11th April, 2025 as tenable in the eye of law as such a recourse would tantamount to double taxation. Hence, said order is, hereby, set aside.”

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Ganpati Polymers, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 for failing to attend personal hearings despite notices being uploaded on the GST portal in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the petitioner’s explanation of being unaware due to not visiting the portal regularly could not justify complete non-participation.

The Calcutta High Court condoned the 180-day delay in filing the excise appeal and restored the matter back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It was viewed that the delay of 180 days cannot be stated to be inordinate, nor can the appellant/assessee can be stated to have been not diligent in prosecuting the matter.

The court viewed that the delay of 180 days cannot be stated to be inordinate nor the appellant/assessee can be stated to have been not diligent in prosecuting the matter.

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court dismissed the Customs Appeal in the absence of substantial questions of law in the appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the customs duty on iron ore fines to be determined on “Wet Metric Ton” (WMT).

The Commissioner of Customs sailing order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Eastern Zonal Bench), Kolkata (“the CESTAT”) . It was questioned whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the net Fe content of Iron Ore Fines for the purpose of levy of Customs duty shall be determined on WMT basis applying the conversion formula, when the emergence of formula for such conversion has no statutory babasis.

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court upheld the DMT method in determining Fe content in IOF and dismissed the appeal, stating that ‘A party cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands at different stages of proceedings’.

The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 assailing the judgment and order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata whereby and whereunder, the demand raised by the appellant upon issuing the show cause notices alleging that there has been a conscious avoidance of the customs duty by splitting one consignment into different components, was rejected.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside Goods and Service Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN) issued without mentioning DIN number.

A Division Bench of the Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa ,had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings.

The Calcutta High Court in a case challenging the application for cancellation of self-assessed ex-bond bills of entry, ruled in favour of the Customs Department. It was found that the tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent importer for withdrawal/cancellation of the Ex. bond bill of entry and re-instatement of Into-bond bill of entry without mentioning the provisions of the Customs Act.

The Commissioner of Customs (Port) filed an appeal against the final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal , Eastern zonal bench, Kolkata under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). M/S Emami Agrotech Limited,the respondent assessee filed 7 Into Bond Bills of Entry for warehousing in respect of imported goods, namely crude palm of edible grade.

The Madras High Court has quashed a Customs Duty Drawback recovery order issued holding that no prior notice was served on the petitioner before passing the order.

The writ petition was filed challenging the order in original dated 30 March 2021, by which the Deputy Commissioner of Customs confirmed the recovery of ₹3,76,447 as wrongly availed drawback for certain shipping bills listed in Table-I and imposed a penalty of ₹19,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the GST Rules, 2017, rejecting the argument that these provisions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, M/s. Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, sought a declaration that the provisions which deny Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a recipient if the supplier has not paid the collected tax to the government were unconstitutional and arbitrary. They also sought a refund of ₹31,57,846, which had been adjusted against their eligible refund.

The Delhi High Court in a recent matter held that the pendency of income tax reassessment proceedings does not vitiate the institution of criminal prosecution under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The observation was made by the Court while dismissing petitions filed by Petitioner Raj Kumar Kedia in a plea seeking the quashal of criminal complaints against him, registered under Sections 276-C(1) and 277-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order stating failure by the authorities to properly consider over 200 pages of supporting documents and the reply submitted by the taxpayer.

Following an inspection at the M/s. Chakra Chains Jewellery (P) Ltd’s premises on 11 and 12 July 2024, during which a sworn statement was recorded from its Director.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order on alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ), holding that the dispute did not fall under Section 16(4) of the GST Act and that the proper remedy lay in filing an appeal.

The petitioner, Tvl. Suyambulingam Stores, had approached the Court seeking to quash an order dated 25 February 2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Nanganallur Assessment Circle.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside three GST (Goods and Services tax) orders and the corresponding appellate rejections, despite the petitioner’s delay in filing appeals and failure to respond to Show Cause Notices (SCNs).

M/s. Sun Scrapers, challenged orders passed by the State Tax Officer on 21 December 2024 and the subsequent rejection of its appeals by the Appellate Commissioner on 30 May 2025. The original assessments for October, November, and December 2023 had been passed on 20 December 2024, modified a day later, and confirmed substantial tax demands.

The Madras High Court has granted conditional permission to an accused in an Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) case linked to the alleged job racket to travel abroad for advanced cardiac treatment at the Mayo Clinic, Arizona, USA.

The Court also ordered that the Look Out Circular (LOC) against him be suspended temporarily from August 29 to September 23, 2025, subject to stringent safeguards.

The Gauhati High Court has quashed an Order-in-Original that had confirmed a service tax demand of ₹16,37,501, along with cess, interest, and penalties, for the financial year 2016-17.

The Court found that the tax department had failed to produce any evidence showing that the underlying show-cause notice was ever served on the petitioner. The case was heard by Mr. Justice N. Unnikrishnan Nair.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has set aside an assessment order passed under Sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, granting the assessee another opportunity to present documents, subject to depositing 15% of the disputed tax within 30 days.

The petitioner, S. S. Traders had challenged the assessment order dated 11 February 2025, issued pursuant to a notice dated 20 August 2024 under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh observed that Income Tax Appeal cannot merely file due to exceeding monetary limit and disposed of the appeal relying on the fact that the monetary limit (tax liability) is less than Rs.2 Crores.

When the case is taken for hearing, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued a new circular dated 17.09.2024 in which, monetary limits for filing income tax appeals by the Department before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs.2 crores whereas, in the present case, the tax liability of the assess is less than Rs.2 Crores, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, the present Appeal may be disposed of finally.

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition as the Income Tax Department was not interested in pursuing the demand under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury disposed of the writ petition by recording that the department is not interested to pursue with the demand raised under Section 143(1) of the said Act, dated 16th October, 2019 for the assessment year 2018-2019.

The Meghalaya High Court directed the assessee to file the revised return rectifying the mistake made of recording sale proceeds in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme (CGDS) Account.

The writ petitioner, Sutapa Chakravarty, is before the Court in the 3rd round of litigation, alleging that the respondents have still to pass a final speaking order for the closure of the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme (CGDS) Account of the petitioner, in spite of order dated 06.09.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 213 of 2024, directing for the same.

The Gauhati High Court allowed the 2 months time to seek restoration of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration, which got cancelled due to non filing of GST return for a continuous period of 6 months.

A single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi disposed of the writ petition by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 months from today seeking restoration of his GST registration. If the petitioner submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of his GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.