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

M/S Jagjit EnterprisesPrivate Ltd vs State Of U.P. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2151

The Allahabad High Court examined the legality of an assessment finalized under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and held that it was vitiated due to violation of Supplier Default & GSTR-2A Mismatch of the Act. The case concerned M/s Jagjit Enterprises Private Ltd., which challenged the assessment order dated 31 December 2023 and the appellate order dated 23 September 2025, arguing that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted despite an adverse decision being contemplated.

The single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that the adjudicating authority failed to provide any date for personal hearing despite the taxpayer filing multiple written replies, rendering the proceedings unsustainable in law. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 75(4) and referred to the Commissioner’s corrective Office Memo No. 1406 (12 November 2024), discouraging mechanical disposal of cases without proper hearing. Accordingly, both the assessment and the appellate orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to issue a fresh, reasoned order only after ensuring a proper opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

NALLEPILLIARUMUGHANJYOTHIKUMARI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2152

The Kerala High Court dealt with the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arising from supplier-side defaults and technical glitches in the initial years of GST rollout. The petitions were filed by several registered dealers, including Nallepilli Arumughan Jyothikumari, M/s Thomson Bakers, and M/s Neerakkal Latex (P) Ltd., who argued that despite possessing valid tax invoices and proof of payment, ITC was denied due to non-reflection of supplier tax payments in GSTR-2A and delays in GST return filing. The issue also pertained to the applicability of Section 39 of the CGST Act, and the eligibility framework laid down through CBIC Circular Nos. 183/15/2022-GST and 193/05/2023-GST.

The single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that genuine taxpayers should not lose legitimate ITC due to procedural lapses beyond their control, particularly when the return-matching system was not fully operational during 2017-2019. The Court granted a one-month window to the petitioners to approach the GST authorities with requisite documentary evidence for relief under the above circulars and directed the authorities to verify and process such claims expeditiously. The Court also clarified that the amendment extending the September return due date to 30 November is retrospective from 1 July 2017, thereby widening ITC eligibility. At the same time, it upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST Act, and disposed of the batch of petitions along with all pending applications.

Harsh WadhwaniProprietor VijayLaxmi Trade Company vs Additional Director General DirectorateGeneral Of Gst Intelligence CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2153

The Chhattisgarh High Court considered a writ petition concerning allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arising from transactions with M/s Taj Enterprises and M/s Agastya Enterprises. The petitioners, including Harsh Wadhwani, proprietor of Vijay Laxmi Trade Company, challenged repeated summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, claiming harassment and asserting that their ITC claims filed through GSTR-3B for FY 2024-25 were legitimate. They sought interim protection from coercive action by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the ongoing investigation into alleged fake invoice-based credit.

The single judge bench of Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi granted interim protection, directing that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners so long as they cooperate with the investigation. The Court instructed the petitioners to appear before the DGGI Raipur officers on 28 October 2025 and subsequent dates as required, and also mandated that the authorities decide upon their objections by passing a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

Deepak Kumar Bhagat vsCommissioner of State Tax, State of Jharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2154

The Jharkhand High Court addressed a challenge involving the rejection of a statutory GST appeal filed under Section 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner, Deepak Kumar Bhagat, questioned the legality of the assessment order and the appellate rejection solely on the ground of “non-receipt of certified copies” as required under Form GST APL-02, arguing that such dismissal violated the principles of natural justice and adversely impacted the taxpayer’s financial rights.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that the appellate authority had taken a “hyper-technical” approach in refusing to entertain the appeal despite its being filed within the limitation period. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal, restored the appeal, and directed the parties to appear before the Appellate Authority on or before 10 November 2025, further directing that the appeal be decided on merits expeditiously and not later than 31 December 2025, after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

M/S. GREENTECH AUTO LLPvs TheState of Bihar CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2155

The Patna High Court dealt with a writ petition filed by M/s Greentech Auto LLP, challenging the rejection of refund claims and subsequent recovery proceedings initiated under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically in relation to refund orders passed under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act and appeals governed under Sections 107 and 112. The dealership sought quashing of the orders reversing sanctioned refunds of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure for the FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24, alleging procedural illegality and violation of natural justice principles.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST framework by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appropriate statutory remedies a second appeal under Section 112 against the appellate order dated 21.05.2025 and an appeal under Section 107 challenging the recovery orders dated 03.08.2024 and 05.09.2024 within 30 days, permitting the authority to consider a stay of recovery upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax.

Sheik Mohideen vs TheSeniorIntelligence Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2156

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court examined the plea for release of an accused arrested under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, relating to the alleged smuggling of gold valued at approximately ₹2.58 crore. The petitioner, Sheik Mohideen, was taken into custody by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for allegedly smuggling 2299.920 grams of gold from Singapore to Madurai via Colombo and sought regular bail on the ground that he had been in judicial custody since 23.09.2025 and was willing to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court.

The single judge bench of Justice S. Srimathy granted bail after considering the period of incarceration and the petitioner’s assurance to cooperate with the investigation. The Court directed release on execution of a ₹10,000 bond with two sureties, surrender of passport, daily reporting before the DRI at 10:30 a.m. for four weeks, and thereafter as required, along with restrictions on leaving India without prior permission. The Court further cautioned that breach of any condition would entitle the trial court to take necessary action as per law, in line with the principles laid down in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala.

M/s.TVS SrichakraLimited vsUnion of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2157

The High Court of Madras dealt with the legality of service tax levied on ocean freight under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, specifically addressing the validity of Notifications Nos. 14/2017-ST, 15/2017-ST, and 16/2017-ST dated 13.04.2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner, TVS Srichakra Limited, challenged the levy on the ground that the notifications lacked a lawful mechanism to shift the tax burden onto importers who were not recipients of the taxable service of ocean freight, and also raised constitutional objections under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, and 269A of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan allowed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned notifications were unsustainable since no statutory framework existed to fasten service tax liability on the petitioner for transport of goods by vessel from outside India to Indian customs stations. The Court quashed both the notifications and the related show-cause notices issued for the period April-June 2017. The petitions were allowed without costs, with connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

V V Steels vs TheAssistantCommissioner Of Gst CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2158

The High Court of Madras examined the legality of blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, arising from transactions between the petitioner-assessee, V V Steels, and PSN Traders, whose GST registration had been cancelled for being non-existent at its declared place of business. The petitioner challenged the continued blocking of ITC imposed on 12.12.2024, contending that all supporting documents such as invoices, e-way bills, bank details, and proof of payment had been duly furnished, and that under Rule 86A(2) and CBIC guidelines dated 02.11.2021, credit should be restored if later found valid, with restrictions ceasing automatically after one year.

The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan directed the GST authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s ITC claim, observing that the first respondent had already acknowledged compliance and supporting documentation through communication dated 28.05.2025. The Court instructed the authority to obtain necessary inputs from the second respondent and issue a reasoned order within four weeks, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs, with the connected miscellaneous petition closed.

M/s.ACS Shipping &Logistics vs The Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2159

The Madras High Court addressed the issue of delayed initiation of disciplinary action under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR), specifically Regulation 17(1), which mandates that proceedings for license revocation must be commenced within 90 days from the date of receipt of an “offence report.” The case involved M/s ACS Shipping & Logistics, whose customs broker license had been revoked by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, along with an order forfeiting the security deposit and imposing a penalty of ₹50,000, due to alleged lapses related to fraudulent IGST refund claims by an exporter, M/s J.Tex India.

The Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who held that the prohibitory order constituted a valid “offence report” and that the respondent bore the burden of proving the exact date of its receipt. As no proof was furnished to show a later receipt date, the Court concluded that the show cause notice issued on 14.09.2021 and the final order dated 25.02.2022 were clearly beyond the 90-day limitation. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order, set aside the revocation of the customs broker license, and allowed the writ petition without costs.

Rhutikumari vs ZanmaiLabs Pvt.Ltd., rep CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2160

The Madras High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether cryptocurrency qualifies as a form of property capable of being held in trust, and whether interim protection could be granted to safeguard a user’s digital assets under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose after the applicant’s XRP holdings were frozen following a cyber attack on the WazirX platform, raising concerns regarding ownership rights and protection of crypto assets in India.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that cryptocurrency is a species of intangible property capable of possession, enjoyment, and being held in trust, and therefore warrants judicial protection. Allowing the petition, the Court directed Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd. to either furnish a bank guarantee or deposit ₹9,56,000 (representing the applicant’s frozen XRP value) in an escrow account to ensure preservation of the subject matter until arbitration proceedings are concluded.

ERNST AND YOUNG EMEIASERVICES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2162

The Delhi High Court examined the legality of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically addressing whether the Revenue could rely on new grounds that were not stated in the original notice issued under Section 148A(b). The petitioner, Ernst & Young EMEIA Services Limited, had filed its return for AY 2018-19 claiming exemption under the India-UK DTAA on the basis that it had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and its income did not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services. The reassessment was triggered on the basis of high-risk case classification and remittance disclosures, despite the assessee having fully disclosed its income.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the reassessment decision was unlawful since the order under Section 148A(d) relied on a new allegation regarding PE, which was never mentioned in the notice under Section 148A(b). Reiterating the principle that reassessment cannot be founded on grounds outside the initial notice, the Court set aside the notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the consequent notice under Section 148. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings, if permissible under law.

Golden Cargo Movers vsState Of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2163

The Chhattisgarh High Court examined the legality of a final demand issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, with emphasis on compliance with Section 75(7) of the Act, which restricts the tax, interest and penalty in the final order to the amount specified in the original show-cause notice. The petitioner, Golden Cargo Movers, was initially issued a show-cause notice proposing a demand of ₹1.32 crore for FY 2018-19. However, the tax authorities subsequently issued a final assessment order raising the demand to ₹5,00,11,112, far exceeding what was proposed in the notice, and initiated coercive recovery actions including bank and property attachment.

The Bench of Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, ruled that the escalation of demand in the final order was contrary to Section 75(7) since the department introduced new grounds and enhanced liability without issuing a fresh notice or affording an opportunity of representation. Holding that the revenue cannot travel beyond what is stated in the show-cause notice, the Court set aside the demand order and related recovery actions, thereby upholding principles of natural justice and statutory compliance.

PUSHPA DECORS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2164

The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed the legal effect of filing pending GST returns after a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, specifically interpreting Section 62(2), which provides that upon filing returns within the stipulated period, such assessments are deemed withdrawn. The petitioner, Pushpa Decors, was subjected to ex parte best judgment assessments for the months of March, April, and May 2023 due to non-filing of returns, but later filed GSTR-3B returns with applicable dues, asserting that the assessment orders could no longer be enforced.

The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that once compliance under Section 62(2) is fulfilled, the best judgment assessment automatically stands withdrawn, irrespective of technical difficulties in the GSTN portal. Setting aside the impugned orders dated 12 July 2023 and treating them as deemed withdrawn, the Court, however, clarified that the liability to pay statutory interest for delay in filing returns and tax payment continues in accordance with law.

M/s. Rasheed Ali andSons vs TheIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2165

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether the mere filing of an appeal against an assessment order would automatically stay recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case concerned tax demands raised under Section 143(1)(a) and Section 147 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2019-20, along with a penalty imposed under Section 271AAC(1). The Court examined the applicability of CBDT Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.03.1996, and the Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017, which mandated a 20% pre-deposit of the disputed tax demand to consider granting a stay on recovery.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, held that the pendency of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) does not operate as an automatic stay on recovery proceedings. The Court upheld the actions of the Assessing Officer in attaching the petitioner’s bank accounts and affirmed that, without establishing sufficient financial hardship or compliance with the mandatory 20% pre-deposit requirement, the petitioner cannot seek protection from recovery. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Department’s right to proceed with coercive recovery measures.

Tvl SAKTHI SAGOINDUSTRIES vsThe State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2166

The Madras High Court addressed the legal issue concerning the validity of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) assessment order passed under the CGST Act for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The dispute centered on whether the assessee, Sakthi Sago Industries, had submitted supporting documents along with its reply to the Show Cause Notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.11.2024. The tax officer had confirmed the proposed demand, invoking non-submission of invoices, e-way bills, and reconciliation statements, which the assessee challenged as contrary to Rule 142(4) of the GST Rules, arguing that documents were indeed filed on 26.12.2024.

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan examined the electronic records, including the GST DRC-06 acknowledgment, and found that the factual finding of “no documents submitted” was erroneous. Holding that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice, the Court set aside the assessment order dated 12.02.2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, permitting the assessee to submit additional documents. The respondent authority was directed to pass a de novo order after granting an opportunity of hearing within three months.

ABDUL HAMEED REHMANI vsSPECIAL DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2167

The Delhi High Court dealt with the legal issue of whether a legal heir could be permitted to continue proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) after the death of the original appellant, and whether a delay of 3621 days in filing an impleadment application could be condoned. The case arose from proceedings initiated based on alleged contraventions committed during 1993-1997, which remained actionable under Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the condonation request by arguing that there was no statutory provision permitting such a delay and that Section 35 of FEMA restricted the power of the Court to condone delays in appellate matters.

The Bench rejected the objections raised by the Directorate of Enforcement and held that the right of legal heirs to step into pending proceedings was expressly preserved under the statutory scheme. The Court observed that the prolonged dormancy of the appeal listed last in 2009 and taken up only after over a decade constituted sufficient cause for the delay, particularly as the legal heir became aware of the case only when it resurfaced in 2022-2023. Relying on the Supreme Court’s principles on fairness in substitution delays, the Court condoned the delay of 3621 days, allowed the application for impleadment, and directed that the appeal be listed along with related applications on 10.11.2025.

VALMIK THAPAR vsPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2168

The Delhi High Court addressed the legal issue relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly when the reasons recorded for reopening a completed assessment fail on merits. The case involved reassessment initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, alleging excess deduction claims under Section 54 and Section 54EC in respect of long-term capital gains declared by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Court examined whether the Assessing Officer could retain jurisdiction to make additions under reassessment despite the original grounds for reopening being unsustainable.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that once the recorded reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings do not survive, the entire reassessment proceeding becomes void in law. Relying on the ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (2011), the Court concluded that “any other income” under Section 147 can be assessed only if the primary additions based on recorded reasons stand established. Since the Tribunal had rejected all the grounds on which reassessment was initiated, and the Revenue had not challenged those findings, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the reassessment order in its entirety.

VALMIK THAPAR vsPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2168

The Delhi High Court examined the scope of exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly whether it is restricted to investment in a single residential unit. The legal issue arose in the context of long-term capital gains reinvested across more than one property and eligible capital gains bonds, along with the corresponding deduction under Section 54EC. The reassessment centered on the claim of exemption for investments in a residential flat in Mumbai, reconstruction of the retained portion of the Delhi property, and investments in REC and NHAI bonds.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia upheld that exemption under Section 54 is not confined to a single residential property and can apply to reinvestments in multiple residential units, provided statutory conditions are fulfilled. Noting that the Revenue had not challenged the Tribunal’s findings in favour of the assessee, the Court affirmed the allowability of the deductions under Sections 54 and 54EC and allowed the appeal.

Commissioner of Customs(Preventive) vs Satish Kumar Subudhi CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2169

The Orissa High Court addressed the legality of confiscation of gold biscuits under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, examining whether omission of a brand description on invoices could justify presuming smuggling. The core issue involved satisfaction of the statutory burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, after 20 gold biscuits of foreign origin were seized on the ground that the invoices issued by Visakha Bullion Corporation did not mention the “UBS” brand.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the respondent had adequately proved lawful possession through verified commercial documents corroborated by MMTC Ltd. The Court held that minor invoice discrepancies cannot override established commercial trail and do not constitute a valid basis for confiscation. Finding no substantial question of law under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and affirmed the quashing of confiscation and penalties.

PRATISHTHA GARG vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2170

The Delhi High Court adjudicated upon the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically examining whether a second notice under Section 148, issued after prior reassessment proceedings had abated under Section 153C, could lawfully survive. The key legal issues involved the prohibition against parallel reassessment proceedings for the same assessment year and the statutory bar of limitation governing the issuance of notices under Section 148.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the second reassessment notice was ex facie illegal, as it was both time-barred and constituted an attempt to revive abated proceedings contrary to law. Relying on its earlier decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, the Court ruled that a notice issued beyond the statutory period of limitation is void ab initio, thereby setting aside all proceedings arising from the second Section 148 notice and allowing the writ petition.

VITHLANI EXPORTS vsSTATE OFGUJARAT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2171

The Gujarat High Court examined the legality of an order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, holding that the Tribunal’s failure to consider crucial issues raised by the assessee amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter involved adjudication under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, including the question of non-service of the mandatory statutory notice in Form 6B and the levy of penalty under Section 34(12) of the GVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which the Tribunal allegedly failed to address.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 29 January 2025 and restored the second appeal for fresh consideration, observing that every contention raised by the dealer must be adjudicated to ensure fairness and completeness of the decision-making process. The Court therefore remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh after considering all grounds raised, directing that the exercise be completed within twelve weeks, and allowed the writ petition accordingly.

M/s.Shri Amman Steeland Allied Industries Private Limited vs The State Tax Officer – V CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2172

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court examined the legality of a GST levy imposed on corporate guarantees furnished between related parties under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner, M/s. Shri Amman Steel and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd., argued that no consideration was received for issuing the corporate guarantee and that the recipient entity was eligible for full Input Tax Credit (ITC). It was specifically contended that the valuation adopted by the State Tax Officer was contrary to CBIC Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023 and Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024, which clarify that where full ITC is available and transaction value is declared as nil or zero, such declared value shall be deemed to be the open market value for GST purposes.

The Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan found that the Assessing Officer failed to consider or refer to the relevant CBIC circulars cited by the assessee, resulting in a procedural infirmity and violation of settled principles of administrative law. The Court therefore set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after granting due opportunity of hearing, clarifying that it had not adjudicated the merits of the levy itself. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

MR. GURDEV RAJ KUMAR vsCOLLECTOR OF STAMPS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2173

The High Court of Delhi examined whether Goods and Services Tax (GST) should be included while assessing stamp duty on a residential lease under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The dispute arose when the Collector of Stamps, GNCTD, raised a demand treating GST as part of the lease rent for property in New Delhi, leased for residential purposes. The assessee, Gurdev Raj Kumar, asserted that such residential leasing was exempt under Entry No. 12 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, and also relied upon circulars including Circular No. 44/18/2018-CGST and Inspector General of Registration Circular dated 24.05.2019, which clarified that GST where exempt cannot be computed into the rent for stamp duty purposes.

The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that renting or leasing of a residential dwelling for residential use is not liable to GST, and therefore, the Collector’s inclusion of GST for determining deficit stamp duty was legally untenable. The Court accordingly quashed the order dated 19.10.2020 and directed refund of ₹2,58,700 (deficit stamp duty and penalty) within six weeks. The petition was disposed of in favour of the assessee.

M/S Rupam Jewellery vsThe Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2174

The Calcutta High Court examined a challenge to a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to alleged escapement of income for A.Y. 2005-06. The petitioner, M/s Rupam Jewellery, contended that the reopening was arbitrary and that its income had already been assessed for a later year, making the notice dated 10 July 2009 unsustainable. However, the Revenue demonstrated that the Section 148 notice was originally issued on 31 March 2008, followed by notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), culminating in a final assessment under Section 143(3) determining taxable income at ₹38,46,690.

The Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that since the final assessment order had been passed way back on 31 December 2009, and the same had never been challenged through the statutory appellate framework, the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court noted that once reassessment proceedings have attained finality, a challenge to the original notice cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction particularly where disputed factual issues and availability of alternative remedies exist. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Avnish Jaiswal vs Unionof India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2175

The Jharkhand High Court, while considering a bail plea in a ₹31 crore GST evasion case, granted relief to accused applicant Avnish Jaiswal on the ground of the period of detention already undergone. Jaiswal was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(l) and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, along with offences under Sections 61, 316, and 322 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging his role as the mastermind behind a multi-year tax evasion scheme causing a loss of ₹31 crore to the Revenue.

The Bench of Justice Ambuj Nath observed that in light of the period of incarceration and the stage of the proceedings, continued detention was unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Jamshedpur.

M/s.GreenstarFertilizersLimited vs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2176

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court struck down Entry 9 of Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and Entry 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), both dated 28 June 2017, which had imposed Integrated GST (IGST) on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism in cases of CIF imports. The Court held that the levy was contrary to the statutory framework under the IGST Act, 2017 and violative of the principle of taxing composite supplies under Section 8 of the CGST Act. The writ petition was filed by Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd, which challenged the legality of such levy on the freight component of imported goods.

The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (2022) , which had already declared similar levies unconstitutional on the ground of double taxation, since IGST is already paid on the CIF value that subsumes freight and insurance. Accordingly, following the binding precedent, the Court declared the impugned notification entries as ultra vires and invalid, allowed the writ petitions, and did not impose costs.

Bharat Aluminum CompanyLimited vs State of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2177

The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed the legal issue of entitlement to Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, specifically in relation to electricity supplied outside factory premises. The Court examined whether such electricity consumption could be considered as being “in the course or furtherance of business” under Sections 2(17) and 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The dispute arose from the claim of Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO) seeking a refund of ITC on Compensation Cess paid on imported coal used for power generation, where part of the generated electricity was supplied to its employee township, triggering ITC reversal under Rule 42 of the CGST Rules.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the denial of ITC on the electricity supplied externally and affirmed the findings of the Single Judge. The Bench held that ITC is admissible only on electricity used for captive consumption within the factory, not for welfare-based external consumption. Declaring that ITC is a concession to be availed strictly within statutory limits, the Court rejected BALCO’s argument on retrospective applicability of the 2022 amendment to Rule 43 and dismissed the appeals, confirming that ITC must be reversed on electricity used for non-business purposes.

Smti Renu Sunar vs TheState ofAP CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2178

The Gauhati High Court adjudicated a matter involving fraudulent misuse of Goods and Services Tax (GST) credentials, examining whether bail could be granted to an accused charged with availing wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹1.09 crore. The case involved allegations of unauthorized access to another taxpayer’s GST ID and password, leading to issuance of fake invoices and illicit ITC flow across multiple entities. The Court found that the accusations disclosed a cognizable economic offence under Sections 316(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arising from the manipulation of GST login details for large-scale tax evasion.

The Single Bench of Justice Kardak Ete declined to grant bail to the accused, Smti Renu Sunar, wife of Shri Harka Bahadur Sonar, observing that there were prima facie materials indicating her direct involvement in the fraudulent transactions in connivance with others. The Bench held that statutory procedures relating to arrest and remand had been duly complied with and emphasized the need for custodial interrogation due to the multi-layered nature of the GST fraud spanning different states. Concluding that the investigation was at a crucial stage and the accused’s release could hamper further inquiry into the broader network of beneficiaries, the Court rejected the bail application.

ROHIT ARORA vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2179

The Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of non-implementation of an Order-in-Appeal concerning the release of seized gold jewellery under the Customs Act, 1962. The case arose from the seizure of 52 grams of gold belonging to petitioner Rohit Arora at IGI Airport, New Delhi, which was initially ordered to be absolutely confiscated with a penalty through an Order-in-Original dated 19 December 2024. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), through an Order-in-Appeal dated 15 July 2025, set aside the confiscation and directed the release of the jewellery upon payment of revised redemption fine and penalty of ₹35,000 each. Despite the statutory appellate relief, Customs authorities continued to withhold the goods for over three months without justification, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction seeking enforcement.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain directed the Commissioner of Customs to implement the Order-in-Appeal within two weeks, noting that the absence of any stay or further challenge removed any lawful impediment to compliance. The Court held that the prolonged delay by the authorities was unwarranted and further ordered a 50% reduction in warehouse charges, with the calculation based on rates applicable on the date of detention. To ensure expeditious execution and accountability, the Court also appointed a Nodal Officer to monitor and facilitate the release of the seized gold jewellery.

STERLING FARM RESEARCHAND SERVICES PVT vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2180

The Kerala High Court recently addressed a significant legal issue concerning the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute stemmed from the sale of the assessee-company’s 'Test House Division,' which Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. had been treated as a ‘slump sale’ under Section 50B for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Although the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer failed to specifically examine whether the transaction qualified as a slump sale or whether Section 50, relating to short-term capital gains, applied an omission that prompted revision proceedings by the Commissioner.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon upheld the Commissioner’s invocation of Section 263, finding support in the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT that revision may be exercised where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Court held that the Assessing Officer had merely accepted the assessee’s claim without conducting a proper enquiry into the taxability of the transaction, thereby justifying the Commissioner’s intervention. Dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view and clarified that the observations in the revisional order would not restrict the assessee’s submissions during the fresh assessment.

THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs M/S SURJIT & SURINDERA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2181

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dealt with the legality of continuing long-pending Income Tax appeals where the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The case concerned assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86, in which the Revenue had challenged the allowance of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Referring to CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15 March 2024, fixing ₹2 crore as the minimum tax effect for filing appeals before the High Court, the Court examined whether the matter warranted further adjudication after over 23 years of pendency.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Jagmohan Bansal and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan dismissed all four appeals, noting that the total tax effect was significantly below the ₹2-crore threshold and the prosecution initiated against the assessee was inactive, with proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate indefinitely adjourned. Observing that the department had also failed to complete service of notice despite multiple opportunities, the Court held that continuing the litigation would serve no useful purpose. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to move an appropriate application within six months should any valid issue survive.

M/S KP GREENENGINEERING LIMITED & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2182

The Gujarat High Court examined whether the assignment of leasehold rights over an industrial plot allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) constituted a taxable “supply” under Section 7(1)(a) read with Section 9 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute arose when M/s KP Green Engineering Limited transferred its leasehold rights over an industrial plot to another entity and received consideration of ₹2.20 crores, following which the Directorate General of GST Intelligence initiated proceedings and issued a show cause notice under Section 74 of the SGST Act demanding GST of ₹39.60 lakhs. The petitioner contended that the transaction amounted to transfer of immovable property, which is excluded from GST under Schedule III of the Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that once leasehold rights are assigned, it results in an absolute transfer of rights and interests in immovable property, placing such transactions beyond the scope of GST levy. The Court ruled that such transfer cannot be treated as a supply of services under Heading 9972 nor brought within the ambit of Clause 5(b) of Schedule II, and therefore quashed the show cause notice issued under Section 74. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, giving relief to the petitioner.

SUMIT JAIN &DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2183

The Delhi High Court examined the issue of whether persons summoned in connection with alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 may seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners, Sumit Jain and another, approached the Court alleging coercive action by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence in relation to summons issued during what they described as a “fishing and roving” enquiry, even after a show cause notice had been issued under the CGST Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, relying on the legal position clarified in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), held that individuals summoned in matters involving offences under the CGST Act are indeed entitled to invoke the protection of Section 438 CrPC. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing that interim protection from arrest shall continue for two weeks, thereby enabling the petitioners to seek anticipatory bail before the competent court, which shall consider the same independently on merits.

TATA PLAY LTD vs SALESTAX OFFICER CLASS II/ AVATO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2184

The Delhi High Court examined a challenge relating to a GST demand arising from alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available. The petitioner, Tata Play Ltd., had assailed the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73(2) and the consequent demand order passed under Section 73(10), alleging limitation and violation of the right to personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the validity of the impugned proceedings, ruling that the Show Cause Notice issued on 30.11.2024 was within limitation and that adequate opportunities of hearing had been provided. Finding no exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, the Court dismissed the writ petition, while granting liberty to Tata Play Ltd. to file a statutory appeal before the competent authority in accordance with law.

VINOD MUKUNDAN vs UNIONOF INDIA REPRESENTED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2185

The Kerala High Court recently dealt with the legal issue concerning the applicability of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the renewal of health insurance policies of Union Bank of India retirees. The petitioners, including individual retirees and the All India Union Bank Pensioners & Retirees Federation, challenged the levy under the CGST Act and sought interim protection from being compelled to pay GST while the matter remained sub judice. The writ petition was filed against the Union of India, the GST Council, and Union Bank of India, seeking not only a stay on GST collection but also an extension of the renewal deadline.

The Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. granted interim relief by staying the collection of the 18% GST and permitting the petitioners to renew their policies for the policy year 2025-26 by paying only the base premium. The Court clarified that this relaxation is temporary and expressly made it subject to further orders, thereby maintaining status quo until final adjudication. The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 21, 2025.

CHIRAG GARG vsCOMMISSIONER STATE TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2186

The Delhi High Court recently examined the legal issue arising under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 concerning an ex parte tax demand of ₹19.79 lakh imposed through an adjudication order passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to respond. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the taxpayer, Chirag Garg, challenging the recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of a Show Cause Notice that was allegedly not properly accessed due to its placement in the “Additional Notices Tab” on the GST portal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta set aside the ex parte order and directed the reopening of adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹10,22,963/- by 10th July, 2025, including by utilising available ITC. The Court permitted the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice and ordered the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the matter afresh on merits, while clarifying that the Court’s observations would not prejudice the merits of the case. The petition and pending applications were disposed of in these terms.

Bharat PetroleumCorporation Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2187

The Bombay High Court examined the legality of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for AYs 2013–14 and 2014-15. The core legal issue concerned the reopening of assessments beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, in violation of the first proviso to Section 147. The reassessment was triggered by allegations of wrongful claims of exemption under Section 10(34) and deduction under Section 32AC, despite the issues having already been scrutinised and assessed under Section 143(3).

The Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the reassessment proceedings, particularly for AY 2014-15, were void, being based merely on an audit objection and lacking any new tangible material. The Bench emphasised that such reopening amounted to a change of opinion and suffered from mechanical approval under Section 151. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned notices and orders, concluding that the jurisdictional requirements under the first proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied.

Aparajita Mukherjee vsUnion ofIndia & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2188

The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed the importance of ensuring effective statutory remedies under the GST regime, permitting Aparajita Mukherjee to file a delayed appeal against a demand order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was unable to challenge the order owing to technical issues that blocked her access to the GST portal. The Court had earlier summoned the concerned CGST officer to ensure compliance with its direction to restore her portal access, and upon confirmation that the system was now functional, dispensed with the officer’s further appearance.

The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that denial of portal access should not result in prejudice to a taxpayer, as the digital platform is integral to filing appeals and defending proceedings. The Court directed that if the petitioner files the appeal within four weeks, it must be heard on merits. Regarding a separate show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 29th May 2024, the petitioner was granted two weeks to submit an additional response, to be considered after a personal hearing. The adjudicating authority was also instructed to examine whether invocation of Section 74 was justified. The writ petition was disposed of with the Court emphasising that procedural lapses or technical difficulties cannot curtail taxpayers’ statutory rights.

GMG TRADELINKPVT.LTD vsDIRECTORATE GENERALOFGST INTELLIGENCE HQ CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2189

The Delhi High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, upheld the validity of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence’s (DGGI) power under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to provisionally attach bank accounts. The writ petition was filed by M/s GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. challenging the provisional attachment of two ICICI Bank accounts, contending that only a “Commissioner” could exercise such authority under the CGST Act, and that the officer issuing the order lacked jurisdiction.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain rejected this contention, relying on Notification No. 14/2017 dated 1 July 2017, which confers the powers of a Principal Commissioner upon the Principal Additional Director General, GST Intelligence. Holding that the officer was duly empowered to order provisional attachment, the Court dismissed the challenge but granted the petitioner liberty to file objections. The DGGI was directed to communicate reasons for the attachment within two weeks, and all statutory remedies were kept open for the petitioner.

Sri P. Subba Raju vsThe State of Telangana CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2190

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail in a ₹41.91 crore investor fraud case, holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not warranted in the absence of any direct financial transactions or business partnership with the complainant. The allegations included inducement to invest in a textile business, “Sri Sai Ram Enterprises,” by use of forged GST and TDS receipts and fabricated documents, attracting offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), and 340 read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999.

The bench of Justice K. Sujana observed that the petitioner neither received funds nor held any managerial role in the business and that the complainant independently verified the enterprise prior to investing. Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing surrender before the EOW Police Station within two weeks, after which the petitioner will be released on a ₹50,000 personal bond with two sureties, subject to weekly appearance obligations and cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

M/S. MAHAVIR AUTODIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2191

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that GST authorities cannot deny the revised filing of transitional credit forms solely on the ground that earlier proceedings on the same credit were pending. The case concerned Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Private Limited, which was entitled to transition to excise duty-paid credit under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 upon migration to the GST regime. Despite filing revised TRAN forms within the special extended window granted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2022), the department rejected the filing by relying on Guideline 4.7 of Circular No. 180/12/2022-GST dated 09.09.2022.

The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held that the circular did not apply in cases where the dispute was only procedural here, the petitioner’s earlier inability to upload TRAN-3 and not related to eligibility of credit itself. Setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 25.09.2023 and Order-in-Appeal dated 30.11.2023, the Court directed that the transitional credit be allowed to flow into the GST regime and quashed any consequential demands arising from its reversal.

Balaji Landmarks LLPEartwhile vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2192

The Bombay High Court has set aside a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) order rejecting a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by Balaji Landmarks LLP. The petitioner had submitted its return for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 30 March 2019, declaring a substantial loss, but the filing was delayed by five months from the statutory due date. The key question before the Court was whether the taxpayer’s inability to file the return on time, owing to reliance on professional advice concerning the complex tax treatment of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), constituted “genuine hardship” under Section 119(2)(b).

The Division Bench comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar held that the delay was due to a bona fide cause and not negligence, noting that multiple professional consultations had been sought on the complex issue. The Court ruled that denying condonation would result in genuine hardship, as the petitioner would lose the right to carry forward losses exceeding ₹4.47 crore. Rejecting the Revenue’s concerns about lack of verification, the Bench observed that Section 153(1B) provides sufficient time for assessment post-condonation. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, condoned the delay, and directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment in accordance with law.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS & M/S FESTO CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2193

The Karnataka High Court recently adjudicated a dispute concerning the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962, in matters involving refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD). The issue arose from the Revenue’s contention that the assessee, M/s Festo Controls Private Limited, had failed to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers a necessary condition for refund eligibility. The Court examined the statutory presumption under Section 28D along with CBEC Circulars Nos. 6/2008, 16/2008, and 18/2010, which recognise a Chartered Accountant’s certificate as sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind upheld the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), confirming that the production of a valid Chartered Accountant’s certificate satisfied the legal requirement under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Relying on the precedent set in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Apple India Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that the CESTAT had correctly applied the law and found no substance in the Revenue’s appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs and affirmed the assessee’s entitlement to the SAD refund.

PR COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAXCENTRAL vs M/S. BELIEVE CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2194

The Delhi High Court adjudicated upon the legality of approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to search-related assessments. The core legal issue concerned whether the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was valid when it was issued mechanically and without independent application of mind. The case arose from assessments framed pursuant to a search in the matter of M/s Believe Constructions Pvt. Ltd., where the Revenue challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision holding such approvals invalid.

The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar upheld the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The Court found that a single, generic approval covering 246 assessment orders reflected no conscious satisfaction as mandated under Section 153D and amounted to mere “rubber-stamping,” contrary to legislative intent. The Court reiterated that approval must demonstrate due consideration of the seized material and draft assessment records. With no substantial question of law arising, the High Court affirmed the setting aside of the assessments, ruling in favour of the assessee.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAXvs M/S. YESHODA ELECTRICALS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2195

The Karnataka High Court examined the legality of a reassessment proceeding initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the jurisdictional notice issued to M/s Yeshoda Electricals for Assessment Year 2007-08 was found to be unsigned. The principal legal issue before the Court concerned whether an unsigned notice could confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, particularly in light of Section 282A of the Act and the doctrine of curable defects. The Revenue argued that the omission was merely a procedural irregularity, whereas the assessee asserted that the absence of a signature was a fatal defect rendering the notice invalid.

The Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision quashing the reassessment. The Court ruled that a notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement and must bear the signature of the Assessing Officer to be valid; Section 282A does not eliminate this mandatory compliance. Distinguishing the Revenue’s reliance on Sky Light Hospitality LLP, the Court held that judgments concerning minor clerical errors could not justify a foundational defect of this nature. Concluding that the ITAT was right in declaring the reassessment void ab initio, the High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee.

M/S. KUSH PROTEINS PVT.LTD.& ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2196

The Gujarat High Court has held that Circular No. 181/13/2022, which restricts the refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure if the refund claim is filed after 18.07.2022, is ultra vires the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and therefore unenforceable. The Court ruled that refund claims pertaining to tax periods prior to 18.07.2022 cannot be denied merely on account of being filed after the said date, as such a restriction has no statutory backing. The petitioners, M/s Kush Proteins Pvt. Ltd. and another entity, engaged in manufacturing edible oils taxable at 5%, had filed refund claims under Section 54 for periods up to 17.07.2022 due to higher tax on inputs. However, the claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 31.03.2023 and the rejection was upheld in appeal on the basis of the disputed circular and Notification No. 9/2022-Central Tax (Rate).

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the notification imposing restrictions on refund entitlement clearly provides prospective applicability from 18.07.2022 and cannot be extended to earlier tax periods. The Court further held that the circular creates an arbitrary and unconstitutional distinction between similarly situated taxpayers based solely on the filing date of the refund claim, thereby violating Article 14 and overriding statutory rights under Section 54. Following its view in Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Union of India (2025), the High Court quashed the rejection order dated 31.03.2023 and upheld the petitioners’ entitlement to refund of accumulated ITC based on the inverted duty structure.

M/S. KUSH PROTEINS PVT.LTD.& ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2196

The Gujarat High Court has addressed the issue of refund entitlement under the Goods and Services Tax regime in cases involving inverted duty structure. The Court examined whether refund applications relating to tax periods prior to 18.07.2022 could be rejected on the ground that they were filed after that date, in light of Notification No. 9/2022-Central Tax (Rate). The petitioner, M/s Kush Proteins Pvt. Ltd. and another, engaged in the manufacture of edible oils classifiable under Chapter 15 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, had filed refund claims under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within the statutory limitation period, seeking refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit due to an inverted tax structure. The authorities rejected the claims, relying upon Circular No. 181/13/2022 dated 10.11.2022, which treated claims filed after 18.07.2022 as ineligible regardless of the period to which they relate.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the restriction introduced by Notification No. 9/2022-Central Tax (Rate) is prospective and cannot affect refund eligibility for earlier tax periods. It ruled that the circular cannot curtail or override statutory rights conferred under Section 54 and that denial of refund solely on the basis of the filing date is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court, therefore, quashed the orders dated 31.03.2023 and 29.02.2024, restoring the petitioners’ entitlement to refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit.

VELLANGALLUR PEOPLESWELFARECO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2197

The Kerala High Court dealt with the legal issue of applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on interest payments made by Co-operative Societies to their depositors. The question before the Court was whether such societies were exempt from TDS obligations under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which grants exemption to Co-operative Societies other than Co-operative Banks. The petitioners contended that they were not engaged in banking business and therefore were entitled to exemption, whereas the Income Tax Department argued that the nature of their operations was banking in substance, making them liable to deduct TDS under Section 194A.

The Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman held that the determining factor is whether the society is carrying out “banking business” as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Upon examining the functional operations of the petitioners, the Court concluded that they operated as banks and thus could not claim exemption under Section 194A(3)(v). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Income Tax Department’s directive that such Co-operative Societies must deduct TDS on interest payments to depositors.

J. G’S DEPARTMENTALSTORE vsINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2198

The Delhi High Court examined the legality of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to substantial cash deposits made during the demonetisation period . The key legal issue before the Court was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) could rely on a new ground comparison of cash deposits during 2016-17 with those of the previous year without issuing prior notice under Section 148A(b), thereby depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity to explain the discrepancy in compliance with principles of natural justice.

A Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela quashed the impugned order issued under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 for AY 2017-18, holding that the AO had travelled beyond the scope of the material disclosed to the assessee. The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law and granted liberty to the assessee to submit a reply within two weeks, directing the AO to pass a reasoned order thereafter.

M/s Bharat Builders vsState ofChhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2199

The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed a contractual dispute concerning the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of ₹11.76 lakh towards Goods and Services Tax (GST) from the Public Health Engineering Department. The core legal issue involved the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner, M/s Bharat Builders, contended that GST should be reimbursed based on departmental instructions and corrigenda issued after the implementation of GST.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the writ petition, holding that the claim raised disputed questions of fact relating to tender conditions and tax liability, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Sukamani Das (1999), S.P.S. Rathore (2005), and Puna Hinda (2021), the Court ruled that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before appropriate civil or arbitral forums, and thus declined to interfere with the impugned rejection order.

M/S ECI ENGINEERINGANDCONSTRUCTION CO LTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2200

The Gauhati High Court examined the validity of a GST demand order alleged to have resulted in double taxation on the same transaction, while also addressing whether such disputes can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory alternative remedy exists under the GST Act. The petitioner, M/s ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd., involved in constructing the Dimapur - Kohima National Highway, argued that a separate levy imposed individually despite GST already being charged on the joint venture amounted to dual taxation and questioned the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi disposed of the petition, holding that the correctness and jurisdictional challenge to the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 could be adjudicated before the appellate authority under the statute. In the interest of justice, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within 45 days, clarifying that limitation would not bar such filing, and ordered that the interim protection granted on 18.01.2024 shall continue until the appeal is decided on merits.