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

NSL Mining ResourcesIndia Pvt Ltd vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1901

The Telangana High Court dealt with a dispute regarding a tax demand of ₹143.97 crore issued to NSL Mining Resources India Pvt Ltd for the assessment year 2019-20 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue arose because the petitioner’s Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench-II, on 1 February 2024, extinguished all Income Tax dues, yet a demand notice was still issued. The Court examined the applicability of Section 156A of the Income Tax Act, which mandates modification of tax demands in light of adjudicating authority orders under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Paragraph 2:

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh order under Section 156A, taking into account the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT. The Court specified that this fresh order should be passed within a reasonable time, preferably eight weeks from receipt of the order, ensuring that the petitioner’s tax liability reflects the extinguishment of dues under the approved Resolution Plan.

SANGEET SETH vs CHIEFCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1902

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with the legal issue of compounding of TDS defaults under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case examined whether a petitioner could be subjected to 5% compounding charges for a second application when the first compounding application had been rejected and no compounding had actually taken place. The Court considered the applicability of the CBDT 2014 guidelines on compounding, which prescribe higher rates for subsequent offences, and clarified that such rates are chargeable only if the earlier offence was duly compounded.

The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that since the petitioner’s first application for compounding had been rejected, the second application could not attract the higher 5% charges. The Court held that the higher rate is intended to incentivize compliance and penalize repeat offences, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Court set aside the departmental communication dated 8 February 2019 and affirmed that the 3% compounding charges initially applied were correct.

Ms. OLA FleetTechnologies Private Limited vs State of Odisha CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1903

The Orissa High Court recently dealt with the legal issue of assessment under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning failure to properly serve notice in Form GST ASMT-10. The Court examined whether the petitioner, OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd., was afforded a proper opportunity to respond to the assessment order for tax periods from April 2020 to March 2021, and whether principles of natural justice were violated when the demand order was passed ex parte.

The matter was heard by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, who observed that the petitioner had not received proper service of the scrutiny notice (GST ASMT-10), which prevented filing a meaningful reply. The Court set aside the assessment order dated 21st February 2025, directed the authorities to serve all relevant documents within seven days, and allowed the petitioner two weeks to file its explanation. The assessing authority was further directed to conclude the adjudication within three months from the date of receipt of the reply.

M/s.Arun Fabricators vsThe Additional Director General CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1905

The Madras High Court recently addressed the legal issue of interim custody of a vehicle seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in connection with alleged misuse of diplomatic privileges for evading customs duties on imported luxury cars. The matter arose under the Customs Act, 1962, relating to confiscation and redemption of a Toyota Vellfire purchased by M/s Arun Fabricators, a bona fide purchaser for value, amid a large-scale scam involving import of vehicles under diplomatic exemptions.

The matter was heard by Justice Anand Venkatesh, who granted conditional interim custody of the seized vehicle, directing the petitioner to pay a redemption fine of ₹19 lakh along with an additional penalty of ₹1 lakh. The Court clarified that the petitioner shall not sell or alienate the vehicle pending disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that interim release does not exonerate the petitioner from any alleged violations.

M/s Barulal Contractor& Supplier vs Commissioner, Central Goods& Services Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1906

The Uttarakhand High Court recently dealt with the legal issue of revocation of cancelled GST registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that a taxpayer may seek restoration of registration provided all pending returns are filed and dues paid. The Court emphasized that such restoration does not cause prejudice to the Revenue and upholds the taxpayer’s fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, which granted the petitioner, M/s Barulal Contractor & Supplier, liberty to file an application for revocation of GST cancellation within two weeks. The bench directed the competent authority to consider the application and issue appropriate orders within four weeks, reiterating its earlier rulings in WP(M/B) No. 71 of 2025 and WP(S/B) No. 39 of 2025.

M/s.Pentagon ShippingServices vs The Additional Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1907

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently addressed the issue of penal liability under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of an importer’s alleged fraudulent misdeclaration of goods. The Court considered whether a licensed Customs broker could be penalized for alleged lapses in professional vigilance and clarified that mere lapses do not automatically attract Section 112(a) liability without evidence of active involvement in abetment.

The matter was heard by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who allowed the petitioner, M/s Pentagon Shipping Services, to contest the penalty without pre-deposit under Section 129E. The Court granted liberty to file an appeal within two weeks and left all substantive contentions for determination by the appellate authority, noting that it had not examined the merits of the penalty.

M/s. ShreenikaLogistics vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1908

The Orissa High Court recently dealt with a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which demanded ₹34.64 lakh on account of alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through purportedly fake invoices. The legal issue centered on whether the Court could interfere in a matter involving disputed factual questions regarding the existence of suppliers and genuineness of invoices.

The bench observed that the case raised seriously disputed questions of fact and that the Writ Court is not the forum to re-examine evidence. Accordingly, the High Court declined to interfere with the assessment order against M/s Shreenika Logistics and Trading Company and directed that the petitioner avail statutory remedies under the GST Act. Liberty was granted to file an appeal within four weeks, with the appellate authority instructed to consider it expeditiously.

Vinod Udaipuri vs Unionof India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1909

The Jharkhand High Court recently addressed a writ petition concerning the disallowance of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017, in which the petitioner sought credit of ₹30.29 lakh for the period July 2018 to March 2019. The legal issue revolved around the retrospective applicability of Section 16(5), inserted through the Finance Act, 2024, which allows taxpayers to claim ITC beyond the restrictive timelines under Section 16(4).

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar quashed the ex-parte Order-in-Original dated 19.05.2023 and the consequential summary order dated 25.08.2023. The Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in light of Section 16(5), directing that a reasoned order be passed within two months, while leaving all substantive issues regarding the ITC claim open for adjudication.

Jurassic Refiners &Jewels Private Ltd vs The Assistant Commissionerof Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1910

The Madras High Court recently dealt with the quashing of criminal prosecution initiated against Jurassic Refiners & Jewels Private Ltd in connection with alleged misuse of the duty-free gold replenishment scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy, invoking offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 120B IPC. The legal issue concerned whether criminal proceedings could continue after the exporter had been exonerated in prior adjudication and appellate proceedings up to the High Court.

The matter was heard by Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed that continuation of prosecution on the same allegations, after factual exoneration in prior proceedings including CESTAT and Telangana High Court judgments, was unsustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, EOW, CBI (2020), the Court held that the likelihood of conviction was “bleak” and accordingly set aside the criminal proceedings pending before the Customs Court, Alandur.

M/s. Genuine Spices vsThe Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1911

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently addressed the provisional release of a consignment of roasted areca nuts imported by M/s. Genuine Spices, amidst conflicting laboratory reports regarding classification under the Customs Tariff. The legal issue concerned whether Customs could withhold clearance of perishable goods despite disputes over their proper classification under the Customs Act, 1962.

The matter was heard by Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the provisional release of the consignment subject to payment of applicable duties, execution of a personal bond for differential duty, submission of requisite certificates, and cooperation in ongoing adjudication. The Court clarified that this release did not bar Customs from adjudicating the classification dispute nor affect potential penalties, and set conditions for expeditious release within 48 hours.

VEDANTA TALUKDAR vs THESTATE OF ASSAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1912

The Gauhati High Court recently dealt with the restoration of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, in cases where a taxpayer has failed to file returns for six continuous months. The legal issue concerned whether a taxpayer, having made full compliance by furnishing all pending returns and paying applicable tax, interest, and late fees under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, can have the cancellation of registration revoked without prejudice to the Revenue.

The matter was heard by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that the petitioner, M/s Vedanta Talukdar, could approach the competent authority for restoration of GST registration by fulfilling all requirements under Rule 22(4). The Court directed the authority to consider the application and pass orders in Form GST REG-20 within 60 days, emphasizing that compliance with pending returns and dues enables revocation without causing any revenue loss, thereby disposing of the writ petition.

M/s Puran Singh vsCommissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1913

The Uttarakhand High Court recently addressed the issue of GST registration cancellation under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where a taxpayer was unable to furnish returns for the prescribed period. The legal question was whether a registered person whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns could seek revocation after submitting all pending returns and paying the due tax, interest, and penalty.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Puran Singh, directing that the petitioner may submit an application for revocation along with pending returns and dues. The Competent Authority was instructed to consider the request and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The Court emphasized that revocation in such circumstances does not prejudice the Revenue and protects the fundamental right to carry on trade or business.

GENESIS ENTERPRISES vsPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI EAST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1914

The High Court of Delhi recently addressed the legality of search and seizure operations under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, concerning alleged misuse of Input Tax Credit and suppression of transactions by Genesis Enterprises. The legal issue revolved around whether the GST Department’s searches at the residential and business premises of the petitioner were lawful and whether safeguards to protect privacy were adequately observed.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain upheld the searches and seizures, noting that the GST officers acted on “reasons to believe” recorded by senior officers and followed procedural safeguards. The Court allowed the Department to continue investigations while directing that residential CCTV footage be accessed only in the presence of a family member and authorized representative, and that seized goods and electronic data be handled with due care. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of, leaving other remedies open and clarifying that the order did not prejudice other proceedings.

M/s.Shree Sai Impex vsThe Principal Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1915

The Madras High Court recently dealt with the legality of provisional release conditions under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 in the matter of Shree Sai Impex. The legal issue concerned whether the customs authorities could insist on both a bond and a Bank Guarantee as security for the release of imported fabric, given that adjudication on misclassification and undervaluation was pending.

The matter was heard by a single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh modified the provisional release order, replacing the Rs. 22 lakh Bank Guarantee with a bond while retaining the Rs. 91 lakh bond and duty deposit requirements. The Court held that the department’s revenue interests could be safeguarded without the Bank Guarantee, and directed Customs to release the goods within seven days upon compliance, leaving the merits of the underlying customs case open for adjudication.

R K I BUILDERS PRIVATELIMITED vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1916

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently addressed the issue of retrospective cancellation of GST registration under the CGST Act, 2017, examining whether a show cause notice must explicitly mention retrospective action to validate such cancellation.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that the cancellation of GST registration of R K I Builders Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 1 July 2017 was invalid because the show cause notice did not propose retrospective cancellation. The Court set aside the cancellation order dated 15 June 2025 and remitted the matter to the Superintendent of Central Taxes to issue a fresh notice and give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before taking further action.

GSPS Developers PrivateLimited vs The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1917

The Calcutta High Court recently dealt with the legality of bank account attachment under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, considering whether the petitioner had adequately disclosed relevant facts and complied with procedural requirements.

The matter was heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury dismissed the writ petition filed by GSPS Developers Pvt. Ltd., observing that the company had not disclosed the date of bank account attachment, nor provided proof of service of Form GST DRC-13 or any written communication from the bank. The Court held that in the absence of specific disclosure and supporting documents, no relief could be granted, while leaving open the petitioner’s option to pursue statutory remedies before the appellate authority.

M/s.Sea Queen ShippingServices Private Limited vs The Commissioner ofCustoms CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1918

The Madras High Court recently addressed the validity of a customs inquiry report issued beyond the 90-day period under Regulation 17(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR), examining whether delayed submission of the report vitiates the proceedings.

The matter was heard by a single-judge bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed the writ petition filed by Sea Queen Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the inquiry report dated 27 June 2025, submitted 161 days after the show-cause notice of 17 January 2025, was invalid. The Court emphasized that the 90-day period prescribed under Regulation 17(5) is mandatory, and delays, even where the petitioner participated in proceedings, cannot cure the statutory violation. The report was set aside, with no costs, and connected petitions were closed.

Govind and Company vsThe Union of India through the Chief Commissionerof Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1919

The Patna High Court recently dealt with the legality of a seizure memo issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, involving alleged violations of Sections 7, 11, 46, 47 of the Customs Act, read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, in relation to the seizure of 17,085 kilograms of betel nuts and a Tata truck.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey quashed the seizure memo dated 12 January 2020 against Govind and Company, observing that the memo lacked recorded “reasons to believe” as required under Section 110(1) and merely reproduced statutory provisions. The Court clarified that the quashal does not bar the Customs Department from continuing investigations or initiating proceedings under law through show-cause notices and adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Binay Rice Mill TradeName vs State of Bihar through the Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1920

The Patna High Court addressed the legal issue concerning the failure of GST adjudicating and appellate authorities to consider materials submitted by the petitioner in support of its refund claim under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The case involved interpretation and application of Section 54(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs refund claims for tax paid on procurement of capital goods.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench comprising Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh observed that the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority had failed to pass reasoned and speaking orders, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the petitioner’s submissions and pass a fresh reasoned order within four months.

S.A. Exports vsAdditional District General of Foreign Trade & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1921

The Calcutta High Court dealt with a writ petition concerning the claim of balance duty credit under the Incremental Exports Incentivisation Scheme. The issue centered on whether a petitioner could seek reconsideration of a long-settled duty credit claim originally limited to ₹1 crore under Notification No. 43/2013 after a period of nearly seven years, relying on a later judicial interpretation.

The matter was heard by a single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the petitioner’s own 2015 application had expressly limited the claim and that no steps were taken for over seven years to press for additional credit. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that an attempt to resurrect a long-settled claim after such a delay was impermissible, and that settled issues cannot be reopened after a decade.

M/s.Sivakumar and Co vsThe Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1922

The Madras High Court dealt with a writ petition concerning the eligibility for tax exemption on inter-State sale of gingelly seeds purchased both within Tamil Nadu and from other States. The petitioner claimed exemption under G.O. No. 3602, Revenue, dated 28.12.1963, contending that tax-paid local purchases should not affect the exemption on inter-State sales. The legal issue revolved around whether inter-State sales of mingled goods could be exempt when records were maintained to distinguish local and inter-State purchases.

The matter was heard by a single-judge bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that the petitioner’s goods were found mingled during physical inspection, and mere maintenance of separate stock records was insufficient to claim exemption. The Court held that the decisions of both the Assessing Authority and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which denied exemption, were correct and in accordance with the provisions of the exemption order. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs M/S. LTI MINDTREE LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1923

The Karnataka High Court dealt with an appeal concerning the allowability of provision for discount as a business expense under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly for Assessment Year 2014-15. The legal issue involved whether the provision for discount made by LTI Mindtree Ltd., a software development company, constituted an allowable deduction under the Act when the discount was contingent on achieving certain sales targets and was discharged in subsequent years.

The matter was heard by the Division bench comprising Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice S.G. Pandit observed that the provision for discount had been made on a scientific and specific method and fully discharged in subsequent years, demonstrating its bona fide nature. The Court held that once the Income Tax Department accepts a provision for discount as an allowable expense in earlier assessment years, it cannot later disallow it without violating its own stance. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the ITAT and CIT(A) decisions allowing the provision for discount as an allowable expense for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTORvs THANGAL KUNJU CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1924

The Kerala High Court dealt with writ appeals concerning the validity of corrections made to the Basic Tax Register (BTR) following a re-survey prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008). The legal issue centered on whether such corrections, which changed land classification from nilam to purayidam, required compliance with Section 27A of the Act or whether the entries made in the BTR prior to the Act’s enforcement are valid and binding.

The matter was heard by the Division bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that the Revenue Authorities had the power to effect corrections in the BTR consequent to a re-survey conducted prior to the enactment of Act 28 of 2008. The court clarified that if the land was recorded as purayidam in the BTR for more than a decade, the State cannot now contend it was a mistaken entry, and such corrections do not require Section 27A compliance. Accordingly, the writ appeals were dismissed, upholding the validity of the BTR entries.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALEXCISE,CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, MYSORE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1925

The Karnataka High Court examined whether customs duty and consequential penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 are leviable on duty-free imported capital goods by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) in the event of non-fulfillment of the Net Foreign Exchange Earnings as a Percentage of Exports (NFEP). The key legal issue was whether failure to achieve the NFEP obliges the unit to pay duty on capital goods already installed and used for manufacturing goods for export under Notifications No. 53/1997-Customs and 52/2003-Customs.

The matter was heard by the Division bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. V. Aravind held that customs duty on capital goods is not leviable if the goods have been installed and used for export production, even if the NFEP is not achieved. The court clarified that General Exemption No. 42 limits the condition for exemption to installation and use, and the retrospective application of the Notification dated 31.03.2003 cannot be invoked. Consequently, the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was also set aside, upholding the Tribunal’s ruling in favor of the assessee, Such Silk International Ltd.

M/S Aasar Scrap Tradersvs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1926

The High Court of Allahabad dealt with the legality of a GST detention order under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The legal issue concerned whether the detention of goods and imposition of tax and penalty on the petitioner, Aasar Scrap Traders, could be set aside when the driver’s initial statement contradicted subsequent documents and explanations provided by the petitioner under GST provisions.

The matter was heard by Justice Piyush Agrawal upheld the detention order, observing that the driver’s first-instance statement carried greater evidentiary value than later explanations or documents. The Court noted that the driver’s statement remained unrebutted, was not made under duress, and was consistent with the facts, while the petitioner’s reliance on other judgments was found inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the GST detention, along with the consequential tax and penalty, was held valid.

STATE BANK OF INDIA vsTHE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1927

The High Court of Karnataka examined the issue of refund of service tax under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in a case involving the State Bank of India (SBI). The legal question concerned whether the Bank could claim a refund of service tax paid on upfront commission for a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) after the PBG was surrendered early, and whether the one-year limitation under Section 11B should be calculated from the date of initial payment or from the date when the right to claim refund arose.

The matter was heard by the Division bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. V. Aravind held in favour of SBI. The Court observed that the relevant date for claiming the refund is the date on which the HAL surrendered the Bank Guarantee (24.08.2009), as this was when the cause of action arose. The Revenue was directed to consider SBI’s refund claim for service tax proportionate to the unutilized period of the PBG, provided SBI establishes that it had not passed on the tax to HAL. The Court set aside the CESTAT order dated 22.11.2017, allowing the appeal.

Shyam Sundar Sahu VSState Of Chhattisgarh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1928

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dealt with the legal issue of the validity of an experience certificate produced by a candidate for recruitment as a Driver of Heavy Vehicle in the Forest Department. The petitioner, Shyam Sundar Sahu, had submitted a certificate from M/s Radhe Rice Mill covering employment from 2 January 2020 to 1 March 2023. The Forest Department had invalidated his candidature on the ground that the company was registered with the District Industries Centre (DIC) only on 19 March 2020, after the start date of the certificate. The Court examined whether the certificate could be treated as invalid despite the company having obtained GST registration under the GST Act in 2019, prior to its DIC registration.

The matter was heard by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, who held that the Forest Department’s reasoning was “purely imaginary and without any foundation.” The Court observed that GST registration in 2019 established the existence of Radhe Rice Mill and that workforce support during machinery installation and setup could validate work experience even before formal operations commenced. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Forest Department’s order dated 19 June 2025 and directed that the petitioner’s candidature be considered along with other eligible candidates strictly in accordance with law.

SHANNU BAGHEL vs UNIONOF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1929

The Delhi High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-PG) score can be adopted as the sole criterion for recruitment to public employment in legal posts under the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The Court examined the challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, focusing on whether restricting recruitment eligibility to candidates with CLAT-PG scores from 2022 onwards had a rational nexus with suitability for employment and whether it violated the principles of equality and merit-based selection.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who held that the prescription of CLAT-PG scores as the sole criterion for recruitment was arbitrary and irrational, noting that the examination is designed for admission to postgraduate law courses and does not measure suitability for public employment. The Court emphasized that eligibility based solely on CLAT-PG unfairly excludes meritorious candidates from other universities and allowed the writ petition, quashing the NHAI notification dated 11 August 2025.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs STATE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1930

The Delhi High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether money seized by the Income Tax Department from the alleged masterminds of the Stockguru India Ponzi scheme could be appropriated toward outstanding tax liabilities, in the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court examined whether funds allegedly obtained through fraud and embezzlement could be treated as taxable income under the Income Tax Act or as “proceeds of crime” under PMLA, emphasizing the overriding effect of Section 71 of PMLA in case of conflict with other laws.

The matter was heard by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who held that the Rs. 34.69 crore seized from Ulhas Prabhakar Khair, Priyanka Saraswat, and associates constitutes “proceeds of crime” under PMLA and cannot be appropriated for tax recovery until the conclusion of the PMLA trial. The Court rejected the Income Tax Department’s application to release the funds for adjusting outstanding tax liabilities, noting that premature appropriation would prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings and undermine victims’ rights. The judgment clarifies that while illegal profits may sometimes be taxed, embezzled or entrusted funds cannot be treated as income in the hands of fraudsters.

M/s CoromandelInternational Limited vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1932

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court addressed the legal issue concerning the refund of Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, where the petitioner, M/s Coromandel International Ltd., sought release of excise duty refunds that had been denied by authorities despite the company being entitled under the law. The case revolved around whether the education cess and SHE cess could be refunded once the primary excise duty itself was exempted, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Guwahati (2018).

The matter was heard by Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, who held that the petitioner’s entitlement to refund was conclusive and that the CESTAT order in its favor had attained finality, as it was not challenged further. The Court directed the Union of India and excise authorities to release the refund of education cess and SHE cess, along with applicable interest, within two months, noting that pending applications seeking modification of the SRD Nutrients decision could not delay relief.

Sharp Tanks andStructurals Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner(GST) (Appeals) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1933

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dealt with the legal issue concerning the limitation period for filing GST appeals under Section 107 read with Section 169 of the CGST/TNGST Act, specifically addressing whether the limitation commences from mere upload of adjudication orders on the GST portal or from their actual communication to the assessee. The petitioner, Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd., challenged adjudication orders under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22, contending that the orders were only uploaded on the GSTN portal and not communicated, resulting in a missed statutory deadline.

The matter was heard by Justice Swaminathan, who distinguished the concepts of “service” and “communication,” holding that mere upload on the portal does not amount to communication. The Court emphasized that effective communication requires a positive act, such as sending the order to the assessee’s last known address by post, courier, or email. Observing practical difficulties faced by small and medium taxpayers, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a GST appeal and recommended that the GST authorities consider systemic reforms, including physical service for cancelled registrations and OTP-based acknowledgment, to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.

MRS. SAINABA HAMZA KOYAvs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1934

The Kerala High Court dealt with the legal issue regarding the allowability of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically whether an assessee can claim exemption for capital gains when the funds for purchase or construction of a residential property are initially borrowed and later repaid using the capital gains. The petitioner, Sainaba Hamza Koya, challenged the refusal of the bank and income tax authorities to permit closure of her Capital Gain SB Account and release of funds deposited for claiming exemption under Section 54F, asserting that she had utilized borrowed funds to construct a residential property with the intention to repay from the capital gains.

The matter was heard by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., who observed that Section 54F permits the assessee to utilize borrowed funds for constructing or purchasing a residential property, provided there is an intention and link to appropriate the capital gains for repayment. The Court held that the petitioner must satisfy the assessing authorities by producing relevant materials demonstrating that the capital gains would be applied for the intended purpose. While final entitlement and tax implications are to be determined in an assessment proceeding, the Court directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to release the excess amount in her Capital Gain SB Account after retaining sums necessary to cover tax liability, interest, and other charges.

M/s. Amit MetalicsCompany vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1935

The Orissa High Court dealt with the legal issue concerning the rejection of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Odisha GST Act, 2017, in cases where the assessee is alleged to have claimed ITC through transactions with non-existent suppliers or via fake invoices. The petitioner, Amit Metalics Company, challenged the order directing payment of Rs.72,63,912/- for tax periods from December 2023 to March 2024, contending that the authorities had wrongly held the transactions to be fraudulent despite documents submitted to substantiate the ITC claims.

The matter was heard by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, who observed that the determination of eligibility for ITC involves detailed factual scrutiny and analysis of evidence by authorities empowered under the GST Act. The Court held that it would not interfere with the findings of fact regarding the alleged non-existent suppliers and fake invoices and emphasized that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy to present its evidence and claim before the appropriate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue the claim through the statutory process.

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCELIMITED vs KITPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1936

The Calcutta High Court addressed the legal issue of whether pending proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) bar an arbitration application, particularly when the underlying dispute is arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case involved SREI Equipment Finance Limited, which filed an application for appointment of an arbitrator under clause 9.4(b) of a Rupee Loan Agreement and a related arbitration agreement, seeking resolution of disputes arising from non-payment of loan principal and interest by the respondent.

The matter was heard by Justice Shampa Sarkar, who held that the existence of an arbitration clause and proper invocation thereof was sufficient for the Court to allow the arbitration application. The Court clarified that objections regarding pending NCLT proceedings, unstamped or unregistered documents, or allegations of fraudulent transactions would be addressed by the arbitrator at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the Calcutta High Court allowed the arbitration application, confirming that the invocation of arbitration is not barred by parallel NCLT proceedings when the dispute is otherwise arbitrable.

Ajay Singh S/o Sh vsUnion Of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1938

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dealt with a case concerning the grant of regular bail to an accused under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The legal issue centered on whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial justified the release of the petitioner on bail.

The matter was heard by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, who noted that the petitioner, Ajay Singh, had been in custody since 7 April 2025 and the trial had not yet begun. Observing that continued detention under such circumstances was unjustified, the Court granted bail, directing the petitioner’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, without commenting on the merits of the allegations.

Barkha Bansal vs Stateof U.T. Chandigarh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1939

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently addressed the legality of detention and prolonged interrogation of a person summoned by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The legal issue revolved around whether detention of the detenue beyond office hours without cognizable offence, and procedural irregularities during interrogation, violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

The matter was heard by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who observed that the detenue, Bharat Lal Garg, had been kept for over 30 hours without urgency, and that procedural lapses including delayed grounds of arrest and absence of proper authorizations rendered the detention unlawful. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court directed the immediate release of the detenue, emphasizing that statements under DGGI proceedings must be recorded during office hours with appropriate safeguards such as counsel presence and CCTV monitoring.

UNION OF INDIA vsADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1940

ChatGPT said:

The High Court of Delhi recently addressed the issue of locus standi in income tax appeals under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter arose after the Ministry of Sports, appellant-assessee, sought to challenge ITAT orders rejecting appeals relating to the Commonwealth Games Committee on the ground that the assessee was not an aggrieved party following the Committee’s disbandment.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar, which held that after the disbandment, the Union of India assumed the role of the aggrieved party. The Court remanded ITA Nos. 1677/Del/2019 and 1678/Del/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2008-09) to the ITAT for adjudication on merits, directing the tribunal to decide the appeals in accordance with law. Pending applications were treated as infructuous.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs M/S SS GROUP PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1941

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with the issue of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on External Development Charges (EDC) paid by real estate developers to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The legal question revolved around whether such EDC payments constitute “rent” under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby mandating TDS deduction by the developer.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that EDC payments are not “rent” and do not attract TDS. The Court relied on its earlier decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT (2023) and noted that the Supreme Court had refused to grant special leave in Union of India v. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. (2024), affirming that no fresh adjudication was required and that the Revenue’s appeal lacked merit.

HEAL HEALTH CONNECTSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE COMMISSIONER DELHIGOODS AND SERVICES TAX ANDORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1943

The Delhi High Court dealt with a matter concerning the waiver of pre-deposit in a GST dispute, specifically regarding the entitlement of the petitioner, Heal Health Connect Solutions Pvt. Ltd., to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund for the financial year 2018-19. The case involved challenges to Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax, a Show Cause Notice dated 05.12.2023, and a Demand Order dated 20.02.2024, which alleged excess ITC claimed and invalid ITC under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court examined whether the limitation for claiming ITC was extended under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the Revenue’s demand was legally sustainable.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, which waived the requirement of pre-deposit in view of the petitioner’s entitlement to ITC. The Court directed that the petitioner may approach the Appellate Authority by 15th October, 2025, which shall decide the matter on merits without being influenced by the Court’s observations. Additionally, the petitioner was to be provided access to the portal to download any required documents within a week, ensuring the appellate process could proceed effectively.

M/S RST BATTERIES &ANR vs DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICETAX INTELLIGENCE GURUGRAM ZONALUNIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1944

The Delhi High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the challenge to a demand of Rs. 18.83 crore raised against RST Batteries and RST Batteries Pvt. Ltd. for allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) through bogus invoices. The petitioners contended that as per a CBIC circular dated 6 July 2022, only penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act, 2017 could be imposed in such cases, and no tax demand should be raised. The matter raised the question of whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to examine disputed factual questions in cases involving allegations of fake ITC.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, which dismissed the writ petition, observing that factual disputes in fraudulent ITC cases cannot be resolved in writ proceedings and that the petitioners must avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court extended the time to file the appeal until 15 November 2025, ensuring it would not be dismissed on limitation grounds, and left it to the appellate authority to consider the applicability of the 2022 CBIC circular.

PRAVEEN GUPTA vs DCITCIRCLE INTL TAXATION (1) (3) (1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1945

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed the legal issue of the commencement of indexation on long-term capital gains under Section 48 read with Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case arose when Praveen Gupta, the appellant, challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2016-17, claiming that indexation on the sale of his property should begin from the date of provisional allotment in 2007-08, rather than from the date of execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement in 2010. The appellant argued that his provisional allotment conferred enforceable rights in the property, whereas the department contended that rights in immovable property accrue only upon execution of the buyer’s agreement.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar, relying on the earlier ruling in Gulshan Malik v. CIT (2014), observed that booking or provisional allotment letters do not create enforceable rights in property. The Bench held that rights in immovable property accrue only upon execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, holding that the addition of Rs. 4,12,812 towards long-term capital gains was justified, with indexation to be calculated from the financial year 2010-11, corresponding to the date of the executed agreement.

FUTURE ART AND DISPLAYvs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1946

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the issue of entitlement to personal hearing under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, particularly under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case arose when M/s Future Art & Display, through its partner Tariq Ahmad, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 25 December 2023 issued by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 94, for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that despite filing a reply to the show cause notice dated 26 September 2023, they were not provided a personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The petitioner also questioned the validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31 March 2023 and Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 22 June 2023.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that no violation of principles of natural justice occurred, as the petitioner had been provided a specific date for personal hearing on 17 November 2023, which they failed to attend. The Court observed that the impugned order, based on the reply already filed, did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. While the validity of the notifications remained under consideration in related cases, the Court allowed the petitioner the liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority by 30 September 2025, subject to pre-deposit requirements. The Court further directed portal access within one week for downloading necessary documents and clarified that the appeal would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation if filed by the stipulated date.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs PANCHAM REALCON PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1947

The Delhi High Court recently considered an appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram, challenging the deletion of an income tax addition of ₹2.8 crore on cash deposits made during the demonetization period by Pancham Realcon Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer had treated the deposits as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18, adding the sum to the total income of the assessee. The assessee contended that the deposits were substantiated through prior withdrawals, main and site cash books, comparative charts of financial balances for 2015-16 and 2016-17, bank statements, and ITR filings prior to demonetization.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar upheld the reasoning of the CIT(A) and ITAT, observing that the assessee had consistently maintained high cash balances in previous years and that large withdrawals recorded in mid-2016, supported by ITRs and audit reports, explained the disputed deposits. The Bench noted that the AO erred in ignoring the main cash book, which accounted for significant withdrawals and deposits, and relied only on site cash books. The Court held that these were factual conclusions supported by evidence and that an appeal under Section 260A cannot permit re-examination of pure questions of fact. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

Vinod Udaipuri vs Unionof India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1948

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court considered a challenge to an order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, concerning the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(4) and Section 16(5) of the Act. The petitioner, Vinod Udaipuri, contended that Section 16(4), which imposes a time limit for claiming ITC, was ultra vires the Constitution of India, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, and also sought to challenge Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the retrospective declaration of GSTR-3B as a valid return infringed upon vested rights and affected his entitlement to claim ITC.

The matter was heard by Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19 May 2023 and Summary of Order dated 25 August 2023, noting that the authority had failed to consider the stipulations of Section 16(5), which had been made effective retrospectively from 1 July 2017. The Court observed that the Union had consented to a fresh adjudication in light of Section 16(5), which allows ITC for invoices or debit notes pertaining to FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 to be claimed in returns filed up to 30 November 2021. The matter was thus remitted for reconsideration, directing the authority to pass a fresh order while taking into account the implications of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.

Mr. Kishore Kumar Ganivs The State of Telangana CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1949

The Telangana High Court recently dealt with a challenge to a notice issued under Sections 94 and 179 of the BNSS Act, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 63 of 2025 registered with the Cyberabad Economic Offences Wing. The petitioner, Kishore Kumar Ganjil, former Managing Director of Airis Pharma Pvt. Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued on 09 September 2025 as without jurisdiction and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the notice improperly required him to produce company documents personally, despite already being named as an accused in the FIR, and alleged that the notice sought to transfer company records unlawfully to the respondent’s office amid ongoing disputes over management and control of the company.

The matter was heard by Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed that the impugned notice had already been duly served on the Human Resources Manager of the company, who had accepted it. The Court held that, as the notice was issued to the company and not to the petitioner in his personal capacity, it was for the company to respond and take appropriate action as provided under law. Consequently, the Court declined to issue any writ or mandamus in favor of the petitioner, noting that remedies were available to the company to address the notice, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

THE COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL TAX vs THE INDURE (P) LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1950

The Delhi High Court recently examined a dispute concerning the levy of service tax on differences between Value Added Tax (VAT) returns and Service Tax (ST-3) returns. The petitioner, Indure (P) Limited, challenged the CESTAT Principal Bench’s dismissal of the Department’s appeal against an order dated 10 April 2017 by the adjudicating authority. The key legal question was whether the respondent was liable to pay service tax on the differential amounts reflected in VAT returns under the VAT Act, 2005 and service tax returns under the Finance Act, 1994, given that VAT works contract tax is accounted on an accrual basis, whereas service tax prior to 30 June 2011 was payable on a receipt basis under Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 2004.

The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain upheld the findings of both the adjudicating authority and CESTAT, observing that the VAT Act and Finance Act are disparate in character and that comparison of returns filed under the two laws is erroneous. The Bench noted that the difference in amounts had been satisfactorily explained through documents and a Chartered Accountant’s certificate. Consequently, the Court held that no additional liability arose on the respondent, and the impugned order did not warrant interference, as no substantial question of law was involved.