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

S J Constructions vsTheAssistant Commissioner and Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1848

The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of whether a single show cause notice (SCN) or composite assessment order under the Central Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017 can relate to more than one tax period. The petitioners challenged the impugned orders on grounds including lack of signature, DIN number, and, crucially, impermissible bunching of multiple assessment periods into one SCN or order, arguing that this violated Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, which provide for issuance of notice and assessment for specified tax periods

The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that a single SCN or composite assessment order cannot be issued for more than one tax period whether a month if assessed before the annual return due date, or more than one year if the annual return due date has passed. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed that fresh proceedings be initiated separately for each tax period, ensuring compliance with the statutory scheme and safeguarding the rights of registered persons.

ZOOMINSURANCEBROKERSPVT.LTDvsASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1849

The Delhi High Court addressed the validity of notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning alleged undeclared commission income by Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner challenged notices dated 24.03.2025 and 28.05.2025 under Section 148A(1), an order dated 23.06.2025 under Section 148A(3), and a notice under Section 148, arguing that the amount of Rs. 82,25,822/- received as commission from IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd had already been declared in its income tax return and accounts, and that no details of commission percentages had been specifically requested during the proceedings under Section 148A(1).

The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that the notices were issued to verify whether the commission amount represented a spurious transaction resulting in escaped income, and such an inquiry is a factual matter for the Assessing Officer and not for judicial interference. The Court distinguished the present case from Jindal Saw on factual grounds, noting that the impugned notice was issued in the context of unexplained or undeclared income and was therefore valid. Consequently, the petition to quash the notices was dismissed, along with the application for stay.

MD. BAHARUL ISLAM vsTHE UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1850

The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand order that treated certain contractual services as taxable manpower supply, even though parts of the work were claimed to be exempt from construction activity. The petitioner, Md. Baharul Islam, a subcontractor engaged by M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. for work on National Highway-31 and related irrigation projects, contended that his activities, including bed preparation and concreting, fell squarely under exemptions provided in Notification No. 25/2012-ST, Clauses 13(a), 12(d), and 29(h).

The Division Bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, observed that determining whether the contractual work was an exempt construction activity or taxable manpower supply required detailed fact-finding, which lay beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Noting the limited powers under certiorari and the existence of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy, the Court concluded that the High Court could not substitute its own factual assessment for that of the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue his statutory appeal.

Gautam Pattnaik vsPrincipalCommissioner of CT & GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1851

The Orissa High Court recently dealt with a case concerning a clerical error in filing Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns, which led to an inflated Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim. The issue arose under Section 73 of the GST Act, where the petitioner, Gautam Pattnaik, was issued a demand of over ₹3.27 crore due to discrepancies between GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B. The petitioner had inadvertently recorded the ITC as ₹1,07,91,648 instead of the correct figure of ₹1,07,916.48, and sought rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act, which was initially rejected by the authorities on the ground of limitation.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, who observed that the inflated claim arose from a genuine clerical error and noted that human errors of this nature should be permitted to be corrected. The Court set aside the order rejecting the rectification application and directed the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Cuttack-I, to allow the petitioner to correct the ITC figures, modify the Section 73 order accordingly, and complete the process within four weeks.

EWORLD BUSINESSSOLUTIONSPRIVATE LIMITED vs SUPERINTENDENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1852

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the legality of retrospective cancellation of GST registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The issue arose when EWorld Business Solutions Private Limited challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 18 March 2025, which sought to cancel the registration retrospectively from 1 July 2017. The petitioner had filed a show cause notice (SCN) on 31 December 2024 for non-filing of returns but subsequently cleared all pending returns and dues. The legal question revolved around whether retrospective cancellation can be imposed when it was not specifically mentioned in the SCN.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, held that the cancellation order was unsustainable as it went beyond the reasons stated in the SCN and relied on new grounds not raised earlier. The court observed that retrospective cancellation has serious consequences, including impacting the input tax credit of buyers, and cannot be applied mechanically. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order dated 18 March 2025, treating the GST registration as cancelled only from 31 December 2024, and quashed the alert notice issued on 27 May 2025, while granting the department liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for any other violation.

RISHI ENTERPRISES vsADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX DELHI NORTH CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1853

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a challenge under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 concerning alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner, Rishi Enterprises, had filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11 February 2025 on grounds including limitation, validity of a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years, and lack of opportunity for personal hearing. The core legal issue was whether such factual disputes regarding alleged fraudulent ITC claims could be examined in writ jurisdiction.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, held that the disputed facts were central to the case and could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The court observed that hearings had been scheduled on multiple occasions which the petitioner did not attend, that consolidated notices are permissible in cases involving fraudulent ITC, and that email communication satisfied service requirements under Section 169.

PROLIFIC HR CONSULTANTS(INDIA)LTD vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1854

The High Court of Karnataka recently addressed the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to late payment of Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF). The appellant, Prolific HR Consultants (India) Ltd, had deposited its EPF contribution for AY 2021-22 sixteen days late due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The legal issue was whether such a delay, caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, could be considered for deduction under Section 36(1)(va).

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind, who observed that the delay in depositing EPF was due to the COVID-19 lockdown and that the assessee had otherwise been regular in its contributions. Considering these facts, the court directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for the delayed deposit, clarifying that the decision was limited to the specific facts of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, the ITAT’s order dated 18.07.2023 was set aside, and no costs were imposed.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs M/S SYNA MEDIA LIMITED ONE LONDON ROAD STAINES UPON THAMES LONDONMIDDLESEX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1855

The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of whether payments received by a UK-based company for software licenses, hardware supply, and support services constitute “royalty” under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The legal issue focused on the interpretation of “royalty” in the context of software licenses and IPR under international tax treaties.

The Bench consisting of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi, who relied on the ITAT’s finding and the Supreme Court precedent in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., noting that no transfer of copyright or IPR occurred that would allow the customers in India to use the software commercially. The High Court found no substantial question of law, upheld the ITAT’s order, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against AY 2021-22. Similar appeals for AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15 were also dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

M/S Central ElectronicsLtd vsCommissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1856

The Allahabad High Court dealt with the issue of taxation of interstate sales of electronic goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of a quashed circular. The legal question revolved around whether reassessment could be sustained when it was founded solely on Circular dated 18 March 2002, which had been previously quashed by the High Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., and whether the tax rate of 2% under Notification No. 2473 dated 10 October 1995 applied without any surcharge.

The Bench Justice Piyush Agrawal, who observed that the reassessment proceedings had no valid foundation after the quashing of the circular. The Court held that the assessee, Central Electronics Ltd, was entitled to charge 2% CST on interstate sales of electronic goods without any surcharge. Consequently, the reassessment orders and related Tribunal decisions were quashed, affirming the assessee’s position and dismissing the revenue’s claims.

Esquire Electronics vsState ofMaharashtra CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1857

The Bombay High Court examined the validity of Notification No. 53 of 2023 dated 2 November 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, which provided an amnesty scheme for filing belated appeals. The legal issue revolved around whether the notification could operate retrospectively to exclude orders passed before its issuance, particularly regarding appeals filed beyond the normal limitation period.

The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, which held that a retrospective cut-off date (31 March 2023) lacked rational basis and could not exclude appeals filed after that date but before the notification. The Court set aside the impugned orders of 12 July 2024 dismissing the appeals for being time-barred, and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeals afresh on merits, subject to compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 53 of 2023, including the pre-deposit requirements.

Revenue’s Failure to Produce Server Records Strengthens Anti-Dating Claim: Allahabad HC Quashes Trade Tax Assessment as Time-Barred

M/S Avant Grade CarpetsP Ltd.vs The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1858

The Allahabad High Court dealt with the issue of service of an assessment order under Section 21(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, specifically examining whether an assessment order could be considered valid when there was an allegation of anti-dating and the Revenue failed to produce the original records of the process server. The legal question centered on whether the assessee could claim the benefit of time-barred service in the absence of proper evidence from the department.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal, which held that the Revenue’s failure to produce the original process server records strengthened the assessee’s claim of anti-dating. The Court observed that the authorities have a duty to maintain such records, and without them, the assessee cannot be prejudiced. Consequently, the assessment order was held to be time-barred, and the impugned orders of the Trade Tax Tribunal and appellate authorities were quashed, allowing the revisions in favor of Avant Grade Carpets Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Vrs Foods Ltd vsAdditionalCommissioner Grade-2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1859

The Allahabad High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether goods transported for weighment without accompanying documents could escape liability under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the GST Rules. The case arose when M/s VRS Foods Ltd. sent a truck carrying battery scrap for weighment without a delivery challan or other supporting documents, leading to its interception and detention by the authorities.

The Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that goods sent for weighment must be accompanied by a delivery challan and prescribed papers, and that subsequent production of documents after seizure could not validate the transportation. The Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments and emphasized that accepting such a stance would frustrate the purpose of Section 129, as violators could conveniently produce documents later. Concluding that the petitioner had contravened mandatory requirements, the Bench upheld the seizure and detention proceedings and dismissed the writ petition.

Sri. Syed ShahRaheemuddin Qadrivs The State of Telangana CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1860

The Telangana High Court recently addressed the issue of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime through forged e-way bills, lorry receipts, and delivery challans. The petitioners sought relief under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for anticipatory bail after being booked under Sections 318(4) and 336 of the BNSS, contending that the matter was essentially compoundable under Section 138 of the GST Act.

The Bench of Justice K. Sujana, who observed that the only allegation against the petitioners was wrongful ITC claim without actual movement of goods, and since the penalty had already been paid, custodial interrogation was not warranted. Granting relief, the Court directed each petitioner to execute a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, comply with conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, cooperate with the investigating officer, and appear before him every Monday until the charge-sheet is filed. The petitions were accordingly allowed, ensuring balance between the interests of investigation and the rights of the accused.

ArcelorMittal NipponSteel IndiaPrivate Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1861

The Madras High Court recently dealt with the issue of parallel audit proceedings under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law, specifically examining the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petition was filed by ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Pvt. Ltd., which challenged a Form GST ADT-01 notice issued by the Central GST authority for FY 2018–2019 to 2022–2023, on the ground that the company was already under audit by the State tax department.

The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, who observed that the central audit notice prima facie violated Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act since the State GST authorities had already initiated and acted upon audit proceedings, even imposing penalties through Form GST DRC-07. Finding merit in the petitioner’s contention, the Court granted an interim stay of the impugned GST ADT-01 notice dated 07.04.2025, restraining the Central GST authority from proceeding further until the next date of hearing.

M/S Bala Ji MedicalAjency vsState Of U.P CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1862

The Allahabad High Court addressed a procedural issue under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, concerning the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under GST REG-17 and subsequent cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns. The petitioner, Bala Ji Medical Agency, a proprietorship registered under GST in August 2022, received an SCN dated 12 March 2024 granting 30 days to file a reply. However, the notice also fixed a personal hearing on 9 April 2024, three days before the expiry of the 30-day period, and failed to specify the venue for appearance. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration through an order dated 2 May 2024.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh held that the SCN was procedurally defective, as the statutory period of 30 days for filing a reply could not be curtailed by scheduling an earlier hearing, and the notice lacked clarity and fairness. The Court quashed both the SCN dated 12 March 2024 and the cancellation order dated 2 May 2024, while noting that the authorities were free to issue a fresh show cause notice in compliance with statutory requirements. The judgment emphasizes that procedural fairness is mandatory in GST proceedings, even when there is a default in filing returns.

M/s Poddar Electronicsvs Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1863

The Allahabad High Court recently addressed the issue of wrongful opt-out from the GST composition scheme and whether proceedings initiated in such cases could be termed illegal. The writ petition was filed by Poddar Electronics Security, a trader in CCTV cameras and electronic items, which had migrated from VAT to GST and was initially under the composition scheme.

The Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, who observed that the petitioner had raised the plea of wrongful opt-out belatedly and failed to produce any evidence supporting its claim. The Court emphasized that once the intimation dated 16 April 2018 was issued, it was incumbent on the petitioner to challenge it through proper proceedings, rather than ignoring statutory notices. The bench further noted that the petitioner had even collected IGST from its customers, which contradicted its claim of being a composition taxpayer. Holding that the order could not be considered illegal or arbitrary in the absence of any material evidence and given the petitioner’s inaction, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the proceedings under the GST Act.

M/s Usha Wire Nettingvs State of UP CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1864

The Allahabad High Court recently dealt with the issue of documentation requirements under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime for goods sent for job work. The case arose when Usha Wire Netting, a proprietorship firm engaged in the manufacture of wire netting and allied products, challenged an order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act.

The Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, who relied on the precedent in Nippon Tubes to conclude that in the absence of a delivery challan and e-way bill, the goods could not be treated as properly documented. The Court stressed that compliance with Rules 45 and 55 is mandatory for job work consignments, and subsequent production of documents cannot cure the lapse. It further held that failure to carry such documents justified detention and proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act. Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the impugned orders, ruling that the action taken by the authorities was legal and not arbitrary.

M/S Kala Constructionvs StateOf U.P CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1865

The Allahabad High Court dealt with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning refund of excess Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid by the assessee. The petitioners, M/s Kala Construction and Another, contended that they had mistakenly paid GST at the rate of 18% instead of the applicable 12% on their works contract, resulting in an excess outflow of ₹8,96,409/-.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai refrained from deciding on the merits of whether GST was wrongly charged at 18%. Instead, the Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of the order before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, within one month. The Bench further ordered that upon such representation, the competent authority must consider and decide the refund claim within two months, after granting due notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Hari Om Udyog vs StateOf U PThrough Its Principal Secretary And 3 Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1866

The Allahabad High Court dealt with a writ petition concerning the validity of parallel proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, in relation to demand and recovery of GST. The petitioner, Hari Om Udyog, challenged the notices issued under Sections 74 and 122 of the UPGST Act for the period April 2018-March 2019, contending that the Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings for the same period, thereby attracting the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, which prohibits dual proceedings by different tax authorities on the same subject matter.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri directed the petitioner to raise this preliminary jurisdictional objection before the State GST authorities. The Court made it clear that the authorities must first decide the question of jurisdiction after granting the petitioner a personal hearing before proceeding further under Section 74. With this clarification, the writ petition was disposed of, ensuring that the issue of jurisdiction is addressed as a threshold matter in accordance with law.

M/S O.C.InfraventuresAndConstruction Pvt. Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Cgst CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1867

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dealt with the legal issue of whether a pre-deposit made through the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECRL) constitutes valid compliance for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, M/s O.C. Infraventures and Construction Pvt. Ltd., had challenged the dismissal of its GST appeal by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), who held that the deposit of ₹15,889/- made via the ECRL was not a valid pre-deposit under Section 107(6), and further treated the appeal as non-maintainable.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that the appellate authority had erred in not granting the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the alleged deficiency, and that in light of the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Yasho Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) affirmed by the Supreme Court, deposits made through the ECRL are valid for the purposes of pre-deposit under Section 107. The Court therefore quashed the appellate authority’s order and remanded the matter, directing that the petitioner’s deposit be accepted as valid compliance, with liberty to require any shortfall to be made good in line with Section 107(6).

The Commissioner ofIncome Taxvs Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1868

The Bombay High Court dealt with the issue of the nature of payments under Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) for medical equipment and the correct provision for TDS deduction under Sections 194C and 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue had challenged the ITAT’s order that held the assessee, Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital (a Trust), was correct in deducting TDS under Section 194C for payments made under AMCs for X-ray machines, CT scanners, dialysis machines, and other medical equipment. The issue concerned assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and revolved around whether such payments constituted “technical services” (requiring TDS under Section 194J) or payments to contractors for routine maintenance (covered under Section 194C).

The Division Bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the ITAT had failed to independently examine the terms of each AMC to determine the nature of services provided. The Court observed that the ITAT, as the last fact-finding authority, ought to have analyzed whether the AMCs involved professional/technical services or routine maintenance work. Consequently, the Bombay High Court quashed the ITAT’s order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, directing it to re-examine the AMCs for the relevant years and give a clear finding on whether TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194C or should have been under Section 194J.

ALL INDIA KATARIAEDUCATION SOCIETY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1869

The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of whether a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has the authority to initiate reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the issuance of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating that such proceedings be conducted in a faceless manner. The petitioners, All India Kataria Education Society, sought to quash the notice dated 16.07.2025 and related reassessment proceedings, contending that the JAO lacked jurisdiction and that the proceedings were patently illegal and contrary to law.

The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar relied on the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3), New Delhi, observing that reassessment proceedings must be conducted by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per the CBDT Notification. The Court noted that similar petitions, including PC Jeweller Limited v. ACIT, had been dismissed following the same precedent. Consequently, the Bench dismissed the pending applications as infructuous, confirming that the JAO could not initiate reassessment and any action must follow the faceless procedure mandated under the Notification.

SH. ALOK KUMAR MISHRA& ORS.vs M/S VIGNESHWARA DEVELOPWELL PVT. LTD. & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1870

The Delhi High Court dealt with the transfer of company winding-up petitions filed under Sections 433(e), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, in relation to the respondent company, Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners, including Sh. Alok Kumar Mishra & Ors, had sought winding up of the company on the grounds of its inability to pay debts.

The Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju directed that the pending winding-up petitions be transferred to the NCLT, Delhi Bench, to enable effective adjudication of all similarly situated parties. Referring to its earlier judgment dated 12 September 2025 in CO. Appl. 428/2025 in CO. PET. 885/2015 (Col. P.K. Uberoi (Retd.) & Anr. v. Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), the Court observed that the transfer was appropriate for uniform and efficient handling of related proceedings. The petitions were accordingly transferred, and the petitioners were permitted to take necessary steps for further proceedings before the NCLT.

The Commissioner OfSales Tax vs Parle Products Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1871

The Bombay High Court recently addressed the legal issue of whether freight charges reimbursed by wholesalers form part of the sale price for the purposes of sales tax under Section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The matter arose when the Commissioner of Sales Tax questioned whether amounts collected by Parle Products Ltd. for transporting goods from its factory to wholesalers’ premises should be included in taxable turnover, and therefore attract sales tax.

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, who examined the terms of the contracts and prior judicial precedents. The court held that freight charges reimbursed by the purchasers were not part of the sale price and could not be subjected to sales tax. Observing that the contracts clearly provided for ex-factory delivery and that earlier rulings had rejected similar revenue arguments, the court ruled in favor of Parle Products Ltd., setting aside the inclusion of freight in taxable turnover.

The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1872

The Bombay High Court recently dealt with the issue of whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be imposed when additions to income are made solely on an estimated basis in cases of alleged bogus purchases. The case arose in relation to Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd., which had filed its return for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring an income of Rs. 4,32,530. During reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, the Assessing Officer made additions totaling Rs. 7,40,776 on alleged bogus purchases and Rs. 59,262 as commission thereon, subsequently initiating penalty proceedings of Rs. 2,75,000 for alleged concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, who upheld the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that penalty could not be levied in this situation. The court observed that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies only in cases of conscious concealment of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and that ad hoc or estimated additions without concrete evidence cannot form the basis for penalty. Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that the deletion of penalty in favor of Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. was legally justified.

The Commissioner ofSales Tax, Mumbai VS M/s. Mardia Steel Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1873

The Bombay High Court recently examined whether the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) can exercise revisional powers under Section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 over orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The matter arose in the case of Mardia Steel Ltd., where the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax had granted a refund but also levied penalty and interest. The company’s appeal led the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty and interest. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) attempted to revise the appellate order under Section 57, raising an additional demand of Rs. 1,40,070.

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices M. S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, who held that the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), as both officers are of co-equal rank. The court explained that Section 57(1)(a) allows revision only of orders passed by officers subordinate to the revising authority, and that delegation cannot be used to override the statute’s clear language. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and ruled in favor of Mardia Steel Ltd., rejecting the Revenue’s attempt to exercise revisional powers.

Vaibhav Maruti Dombalevs The Assistant Registrar CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1874

The Bombay High Court recently addressed the legal issue of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can recall its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of a subsequent judicial ruling. The matter arose when Vaibhav Maruti Dombale challenged the ITAT Pune Bench’s order dated 17 September 2024, which had recalled its earlier order of 5 September 2022 following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, delivered after the 2022 order.

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, who held that the ITAT’s recall was impermissible. The court observed that powers under Section 254(2) are similar to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which bars review on the basis of a later judgment. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services came after the ITAT’s original order, no apparent mistake existed on the record. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the ITAT’s 2024 order, restored the 2022 order in favor of the petitioner, and clarified that the Revenue could still challenge the 2022 order under Section 260A if legally permissible.

M/s Usha Wire Nettingvs State of UP and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1875

The Allahabad High Court recently dealt with the issue of mandatory documentation for goods sent for job work under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, specifically under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act. The case arose when Usha Wire Netting, a proprietorship firm engaged in manufacturing wire netting, barbed wires, nails, and welded mesh, had goods intercepted en route to a job worker in Ghaziabad, U.P. The vehicle carrying the goods did not have a delivery challan or job work-specific documents at the time of interception, though such documents were subsequently generated by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, claiming there was no intention to evade tax.

The matter was heard by Justice Piyush Agrawal, who held that compliance with Rules 45 and 55 of the GST Rules, which mandate a delivery challan for goods sent for job work, is mandatory, and an accompanying e-way bill is also required as per Rule 138. The Court observed that the absence of such documentation at the time of interception justified action under Section 129. Citing the precedent set in Nippon Tubes, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not claim protection for non-compliance and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order.

The Commissioner ofSales Tax vs M/s Superphone India Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1876

The Bombay High Court recently examined whether part payment orders passed by the first appellate authority under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 can be challenged in a second appeal before the Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal has the power to modify such orders under Section 55. The matter arose in the case of Superphone India Ltd., which had filed first appeals against six assessment orders for the period 1989-1992. The appellate authority had directed part payments on 11 July 1995, and when the assessee failed to comply, the appeals were summarily dismissed on 28 August 1995. The assessee then approached the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, which set aside the summary dismissal, reduced the part payment amounts, and remanded the appeals for disposal on merits.

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, who held that interlocutory orders, such as part payment directions, can be challenged in an appeal against the final dismissal order. The court observed that, similar to principles under Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code, procedural or interlocutory orders do not attain finality and can be questioned during subsequent appeals. Further, the Tribunal, acting under Section 55(6), had the authority to modify the part payment order while deciding the second appeal. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s 1996 order, allowing the challenge to the part payment order and disposing of the matter in favor of the assessee.

M/S CENT PLY vsCOMMISSIONER CGST AND CX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1877

The Gauhati High Court recently addressed the issue of whether a special excise rebate under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25 April 2007 can be claimed beyond the statutory limitation period. The case arose when Cent Ply, a new industrial unit manufacturing plywood, filed an application for a 65% value addition rebate for FY 2009-10. The appellant argued that the delay in claiming the rebate was due to the late issuance of an Eligibility Certificate by the tax authorities on 14 May 2010, which it claimed was necessary before applying for the rebate. The company contended that this delay made its application time-barred through no fault of its own.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Micheal Zothankhuma and Ajan Moni Kalita, who held that the Notification did not mandate the issuance of an Eligibility Certificate as a precondition for claiming the rebate. The court observed that the appellant had been regularly filing monthly refund claims and could have applied for fixation of the rebate within the statutory period. Since Cent Ply failed to submit its application by the prescribed deadline, the claim was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the Commissioner and the CESTAT.

M/S Kent Cables Pvt.Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1878

The Allahabad High Court recently addressed the issue of whether the issuance of a single e-way bill for multiple invoices under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime can attract a penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act. The case arose when a consignment of cables from Delhi to Sultanpur was intercepted, and the authorities noted that four tax invoices were accompanied by only one e-way bill, with minor differences in invoice dates. The petitioner contended that all invoices, goods receipts, and the e-way bill were available, the total value of goods was disclosed, and there was no concealment or intent to evade tax, making the issue a mere technical error.

The matter was heard by Justice Piyush Agrawal, who held that issuance of a single e-way bill covering multiple invoices, in the absence of any mismatch in goods or quantity and without evidence of tax evasion, cannot be treated as a contravention warranting penalty. The Court emphasized that human errors in generating e-way bills should not attract harsh penalties unless there is cogent material showing an intent to evade tax. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the penalty order, directed a refund of any deposits made, and reaffirmed that mere procedural or technical lapses cannot form the sole basis for punitive action under GST.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1879

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the issue of whether a charitable trust can claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, taking into account its historical position of enjoying tax exemptions. The case arose when Hamdard Laboratories (India), a registered Trust under Section 12A, filed its return for AY 2016-17 claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, disclosing nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) had completed the assessment on 30 December 2018, disallowing certain deductions and adding income from leased properties under Section 13(2)(b), thereby taxing the trust at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/-. The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), which held that the trust was eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv), following a remand report and submissions.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Anish Dayal, which upheld the ITAT Delhi’s order allowing the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv). The Court noted that the Revenue had failed to produce cogent evidence showing inadequacy of rent received, and the material collected was largely from internet sources and estate agents, lacking corroboration. Given that the assessee had consistently enjoyed exemption since AY 2004-05 and no substantial question of law arose, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trust’s entitlement to exemption and upholding the ITAT’s findings in favor of Hamdard Laboratories.

VRG ELECTRONICS PVT LTDvs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1880

The Delhi High Court recently examined the issue of whether a delay in filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) and Form 10-IC due to the negligence of an accountant can be considered a reasonable cause for condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case arose when VRG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking condonation of a 60-day delay for AY 2023-24, attributing the delay to the accountant’s illness and workload. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had rejected the application, holding that negligence on the part of the accountant did not constitute genuine hardship, and denied the benefits of Section 115BAA.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, which held that the impugned order was unreasoned, as it failed to consider the petitioner’s averments regarding the accountant’s mistake. The Court emphasized that Section 119(2)(b) empowers authorities to condone delays to avoid genuine hardship, and that reasonable cause arising from reliance on a professional should not be dismissed mechanically. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 and remanded the matter to the PCIT for de novo consideration, directing a reasoned evaluation of the condonation application on merits.

UDIT GOYAL vs PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1881

The Delhi High Court recently examined the issue of whether a 12-day delay in filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) due to difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, Udit Goyal, filed his ITR for AY 2021-22 on 12.01.2022, after the due date of 31.12.2021, citing pandemic-related hardships and limited office staff during the second and third waves. An application for condonation of delay, filed on 28.02.2023, was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which held that the delay was not a case of genuine hardship, citing CBDT Circular No. 09/2015.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, which observed that the impugned order was mechanical and unreasoned, failing to consider the petitioner’s explanations regarding pandemic-related difficulties and bona fide conduct in filing the ITR. The Court emphasized that Section 119(2)(b) empowers authorities to condone delays to avoid genuine hardship, and that each application must be examined on its merits with reasoned findings. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 and remanded the matter to the PCIT for de novo consideration, directing a proper evaluation of the condonation application in accordance with law and CBDT guidelines.

Smt. Neema Mangal vsState of U.P. and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1882

The Allahabad High Court recently dealt with a case involving allegations of GST evasion linked to a dumper truck found with a defaced registration plate, seized during a police check in Agra on 18 August 2022. The truck, belonging to M/s Shakti India Traders, was empty at the time of seizure, and the registration plate was smeared with black grease. The applicant, Smt. Neema Mangal, was implicated based on statements made during the investigation, facing charges under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code for cheating and forgery, following the filing of a charge-sheet on 13 November 2022.

The matter was heard by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who noted the need for careful judicial scrutiny, particularly given that the vehicle was empty and no independent witnesses were present at the seizure. The Court observed that the allegations required detailed examination and, in the interim, stayed all coercive action against the applicant, issuing notice to the respondents. The case has been listed for further hearing on 16 October 2025.

Mudit Gupta vs State OfU.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1883

The Allahabad High Court recently clarified the scope of Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, ruling that tax liability cannot be determined in the name of a deceased proprietor. The case arose after multiple GST demands totaling nearly ₹68 lakh were issued in the name of late Pushpa Gupta, proprietor of M/s M.G. Sarees, for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, despite her GST registration being cancelled following her death in June 2021. Her son and legal heir, Mudit Gupta, challenged the proceedings, contending that the department had no jurisdiction to issue notices or pass demand orders against a deceased individual, rendering such orders void ab initio.

The matter was heard by Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, who held that while Section 93 contemplates recovery from legal heirs, it does not authorize determination directly against a deceased person. The Court emphasized that a legal heir must be issued a show cause notice and given an opportunity to respond before any liability can be enforced. Consequently, all four posthumous demand orders were quashed, with the High Court permitting the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law against the legal representative of the deceased.

M/S Eco Cement IndiaLtd. vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1884

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere electricity consumption cannot form the sole basis for alleging suppression of purchases and sales under the GST Act. The case involved M/s Eco Cement India Ltd., a public limited company engaged in cement manufacturing and trading in iron and steel, which faced inspections beginning on 9 January 2019. Initial proceedings under Sections 130 and 122 of the GST Act were dropped, but fresh proceedings under Section 74 were later initiated, alleging suppression of purchases and sales. The adjudicating authority passed an adverse order on 20 October 2022, partly upheld on appeal on 6 June 2023, prompting the company to challenge the orders.

The matter was heard by Justice Piyush Agrawal who observed that electricity usage can fluctuate due to various factors such as manufacturing load and crushing operations, none of which had been examined by the authorities. The Court emphasized that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed purchases or sales, and that the company’s submissions and supporting material had been ignored. The orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration within three months, with both parties allowed to submit further evidence.

M/S Uma Shankar MishraThekedar vs State of U.P. and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1885

The Allahabad High Court addressed concerns regarding the manner of uploading GST orders on the portal, in the case of M/s Uma Shankar Mishra Thekedar, challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated 20.04.2024 under Section 73(9) of the U.P. GST Act for FY 2018-19, along with the consequential demand in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner contended that the impugned order appeared under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the regular “View Notices and Orders” tab, causing difficulty in tracing the order and filing a timely reply. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. (2023), where similar portal-related issues were considered by the Court.

The matter was heard by Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Praveen Kumar Giri who directed that the assessee may treat the impugned order as a final notice and file a reply within two weeks. The assessing officer was instructed to issue a fresh notice in the prescribed manner, provide at least fifteen days for response, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within one month.

Ankit Bansal vs UnionOf India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1886

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the second bail application of Ankit Bansal, accused in a GST-related offence, holding that no extraordinary circumstances justified bypassing the trial court. The petitioner had directly approached the High Court instead of first seeking relief from the trial court, citing only potential delay as justification.

The matter was heard by Justice Anand Sharma noted that while the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear bail applications, judicial propriety requires that a second bail plea should ordinarily be moved before the trial court. Since no exceptional circumstances were shown, the petition was not maintainable. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the application with liberty to approach the trial court, directing that any bail application there be decided expeditiously, preferably within seven working days.

M/s. TUF MetallurgicalPrivate Limited vs Union of India and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1887

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether supplies from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) could be subjected to export duty under the 5th proviso to Rule 27(1) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, in light of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. The case specifically addressed whether the department could lawfully impose export duty on DTA–SEZ supplies, and whether such levy had statutory authority, given the provisions of Sections 26 and 30 of the SEZ Act which provide for exemptions and levy of duty only on goods moving from SEZs to DTA.

The matter was heard by Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that the 5th proviso to Rule 27(1) was ultra vires the SEZ Act and struck it down. The Court clarified that there is no statutory or constitutional basis, under Article 265, to levy export duty on DTA–SEZ supplies. Consequently, the departmental rejection order dated 26 April 2024 denying exemption was quashed, affirming that such supplies are not subject to export duty.

M/S Gail India Ltd vsCommissioner Of Commercial Taxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1888

The Allahabad High Court addressed the legal issue of whether entry tax under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 can be levied on the sale price of natural gas, including transmission charges and marketing margins, when the purchase value at the time of entry into the State is ascertainable. The case focused on whether the taxable value for entry tax should be determined based on the sale price charged to consumers or the actual purchase price of gas procured from ONGC.

The matter was heard by Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that entry tax could only be levied on the ascertainable purchase value at the point of entry, and it was impermissible to include transmission charges and marketing margins in the taxable value. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order of remand was quashed, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh within three months, affirming that the levy on subsequent sale price to consumers was legally unsustainable.

Deputy Commissioner vsKhurshid Bibi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1889

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dealt with the issue of whether GST demands can be validly raised against a deceased taxpayer under the J&K GST/CGST Act, 2017, particularly concerning proceedings under Section 74. The case involved a show-cause notice, reminder, and recovery notice issued against a deceased person, which had earlier been quashed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided.

The matter was heard by Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the review petition filed by the State authorities, holding that once the show-cause notice was quashed, all consequential proceedings, including the final demand of ₹33.19 lakh, automatically stood vitiated. The Court reaffirmed that raising tax demands against a deceased individual violates principles of natural justice, while also allowing the Department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law with proper notice and hearing.

M/S. NAGESWARA TRADE vsJOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1890

The Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of provisional release of imported multi-functional printers and photocopier machines seized by Customs, in light of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The legal question revolved around whether Customs Circular No. 35/2017-Cus dated 16 August 2017 could bar provisional release of goods, and whether such circulars could override statutory provisions permitting release upon deposit of duty and furnishing of a bond.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain allowed the provisional release of the seized goods valued at ₹47.56 lakh, directing the petitioner, M/s Nageswara Trade, to deposit 50% of the applicable duty and furnish a bond for the balance. The Court held that Circular 35/2017 was ultra vires Section 110A, reaffirming that adjudicating authorities retain discretion to grant provisional release, and emphasized that while confiscation or penalties may proceed, outright denial of provisional release based on the circular was unlawful.

Sanjay Kumar Baid vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1891

The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed the issue of whether compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956 is taxable under the Income Tax Act or exempt under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The legal question concerned whether the exemption under Section 96, which applies to compensation determined under the 2013 Act, extends to land acquired under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the National Highways Act.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal allowed the appeal of Sanjay Kumar Baid, holding that compensation received under the National Highways Act is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the 2013 Act. The Court emphasized that denying the exemption would discriminate between landowners and contravene legislative intent. The ITAT’s order affirming taxability was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders granting relief, with parties bearing their own costs.

JNRB INTERNATIONAL LLP vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1892

The Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of delayed adjudication of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under the Customs Act, 1962 against JNRB International LLP concerning the import of parts of gas lighters. The dispute revolved around whether the imported consignment constituted mere “parts” or Semi-Knocked Down (SKD) kits of complete gas lighters, which are prohibited under DGFT Notification No. 15/2023.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain directed the Customs Department to complete adjudication of the SCN by 31st October 2025, emphasizing the need for a time-bound resolution given the consignment had been imported nearly a year prior. The Court clarified that all rights and remedies of both parties remain open, and disposed of the writ petition while ensuring procedural compliance.

ANKUR AGARWAL vsCENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1893

The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of withholding and procedural blockage of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds for a petitioner flagged as a ‘Risky Exporter’ under the Uttarakhand GST regime. The petitioner, Ankur Agarwal, operating M/s Safecon Lifesciences, faced difficulties in re-crediting IGST refunds due to portal access issues and the inability to submit PMT-03 forms, despite having deposited IGST at the time of export.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain directed GSTIN and the Uttarakhand GST Department to enable re-credit of the petitioner’s IGST refunds without requiring PMT-03 submission, coordinating between the State and GST Network. The Court also added the State GST Commissioner, Rudraprayag as a party to facilitate the process and scheduled the matter for further hearing on 31st October 2025 to ensure refunds were properly processed.

MARTHOMA SYRIAN CHURCHvs STATE OF KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1894

The Kerala High Court examined the issue of exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 for a building used to provide free accommodation to aged and disabled persons and their dependents. The petitioner, Marthoma Syrian Church, challenged the rejection of its application seeking tax exemption for a building constructed to house retired clergymen, aged priests, and families of deceased clergymen, asserting that the building was used for charitable purposes.

The matter was heard by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that if the building is used to provide free accommodation to persons who had rendered services to charitable or religious institutions managed by the petitioner, the use would constitute a charitable purpose under Section 3(1)(b). The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to reconsider the exemption application, clarifying that the benefit shall be extended if the accommodation is indeed provided without charge to eligible persons and their dependents.

Dr. Tushar KantiKarmakar vs Shilabati Hospital Private Limited &Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1012

The Calcutta High Court dealt with the interpretation of Rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), specifically addressing whether the term “parties” includes the borrower and guarantor. The Court clarified that “parties” under Rule 8(8), whether pre- or post-amendment, refers only to the Bank and the proposed purchaser and does not mandate inclusion of borrowers or guarantors in the proceedings.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta upheld that the rejection of a settlement proposal by the Bank does not attract principles of natural justice outside the statutory scheme. The Court held that once remedies under the SARFAESI Act are exhausted, parties cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to reopen proceedings. It was observed that the writ petitioners, having already failed before the DRT and not seeking a hearing from the Bank, had abused writ jurisdiction, and therefore, the petition ought to have been dismissed or relegated to the appropriate forum.

M/s. Rain CH Carbon(Vizag) Ltd vs Office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1896

The Telangana High Court dealt with the legality of supply of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) by domestic calciners to SEZ units under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), 2023 and relevant orders of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). The legal issue revolved around whether Advance Authorisation for import of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) and subsequent supply of CPC to SEZ units is permissible as deemed exports under the FTP.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar quashed the DGFT rejection order dated 5 February 2025 and the deficiency letter of 15 January 2025, holding that the authorities had failed to consider the petitioner’s explanation and the CAQM order permitting deemed exports. The Court remitted the matter to DGFT for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be given a personal hearing. In the interim, the petitioner was allowed to supply CPC to Vedanta SEZ, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Fariyad Alam vs TheUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1897

The Patna High Court addressed the legality of seizure and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, specifically whether an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) had the authority to seize wheat and whether the seizure memo complied with statutory requirements under Section 110 of the Act. The legal issue centered on the absence of a mandatory “reason to believe” in the seizure memo and the competence of the officer executing the seizure.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that the seizure by the ASI of SSB was unauthorized and that the seizure memo and subsequent confiscation order were invalid. The Court quashed both orders and directed the authorities to refund ₹46,200 with 6% interest from the date of seizure and ₹5,000 as litigation costs within six weeks. The auction conducted during the pendency of the writ was also declared unlawful, and the writ petition was allowed.

M/S Rawder PetroleumPvt Ltd. vs Union Of India Ministry Of Finance CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1898

The Allahabad High Court dealt with the classification of imported areca nuts under the Customs Tariff, examining whether the nuts should be treated as roasted or dried. The legal issue arose from a seizure by Customs authorities, who contended that the imported nuts from Indonesia were dried, based on laboratory reports, whereas the importer maintained they were roasted and correctly classified under the tariff entry for roasted nuts, following an advance ruling by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR).

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that drying and roasting are “diametrically different” processes, and that the imported nuts were roasted, as confirmed by timely laboratory tests. The Court quashed the seizure, directed release of the goods (subject to Gamma Irradiation due to the time elapsed), and dismissed the connected Customs appeals filed by the department, upholding the classification under roasted nuts.

M/s.Kwalitee Fabs vsThe Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1899

The Madras High Court examined whether MEIS (Merchandise Exports from India Scheme) certificates could be acted upon by Customs under Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962. The legal issue involved the authority to suspend, cancel, or adjudicate the validity of such certificates, which the appellant, Kwalitee Fabs, claimed lies solely with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar held that MEIS certificates qualify as “instruments” under Section 28AAA, but only the DGFT has the statutory power to suspend or cancel them. The Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as lacking jurisdiction and allowed the writ appeal, while permitting Customs to approach DGFT for appropriate action.

COMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMSEXPORTvs RAVINDRAKUMAR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1900

The High Court of Delhi addressed the legality of a Rs. 10 lakh penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 on a freight forwarder, Ravindra Kumar, for his role in the attempted illegal export of Red Sanders. The matter involved the application of Section 114AA as well, which provides for enhanced penalties where documents are knowingly false, but the Court examined whether the respondent had knowledge of misdeclaration.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain upheld the Rs. 10 lakh penalty under Section 114, noting that the assessee had coordinated airway bills, documents, and consignment details that facilitated the illegal export, even though he claimed to have gained no personal benefit. The Court held that a penalty under Section 114AA was not warranted due to his limited role and lack of knowledge of misdeclaration. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty confirmed.