Sri PratyangiraLogistics vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 101

The Madras High Court, in a matter of under declaration of ineligible Goods and Services Tax ( GST )-Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) has directed to lift the bank account proceedings or garnishee proceedings on 10% pre-deposit. It granted the opportunity for hearing for the last time.

The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass an order in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable hearing. Failure to comply with these conditions within the stipulated timelines would lead to the restoration of the impugned order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Mandava HoldingsPvt. Ltd. VS PTC India Financial ServicesLimited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 102

In a recent case, the Telangana High Court has held that a request for a one-time settlement cannot be entertained by a sole financial creditor after commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolutions Proceedings ( CIRP ).

While dismissing the petition, the bench noted that there was an unexplained delay in approaching the court and that even otherwise the appropriate forum would be the NCLT.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

THE KERALASTATE-EX-SERVICES LEAGUE STATE COMMITTEE vsCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 103

The Kerala High Court stated that services by charitable societies who look after socio-economic and welfare matters of ex-serviceman and their families are liable to service tax. Since educational institutions are not considered to be commercial entities by definition or by the activities they are supposed to carry out, the assessee cannot be regarded on an equal basis with them.

The bench dismissed the plea, ruling that even if it may be true that the assessee did not turn a profit from its commercial activities in a given year or years, it is nonetheless true that the assessee entered into the enterprise with the intention of turning a profit. Since educational institutions are not considered to be commercial entities by definition or by the activities they are supposed to carry out, the assessee cannot be regarded on an equal basis with them.

Income Tax Dept Issues Suo Motu New PAN to Existing PAN Holder: Patna HC Invalidates New PAN and Quashes Reassessment Orders

Gyanti Devi vsPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 104

The Patna High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under a suo motu-issued PAN, holding that the Income Tax Department acted illegally in generating a fresh PAN for a taxpayer who already possessed a valid one. The assessee was assessed for AY 2016-17 under a different PAN, even though she had consistently filed her returns under her original PAN. Although the show-cause notice relating to land purchases was responded to under the valid PAN, the department proceeded to complete the assessment under the newly generated PAN and issued demand and penalty orders.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act was not followed, and that issuance of a new PAN without legal authority violated statutory requirements. Rejecting the department’s reliance on internal instructions for non-PAN cases, the Court held the reassessment to be invalid, quashed the assessment, demand and penalty orders, directed cancellation of the erroneously issued PAN, and left it open to the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, subject to limitation.

Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Revision Petition for Misrepresentation of Financial Facts in Tobacco Business

VaddempudiSivannarayana vs Marella Venkata Rao and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 105

In the recent ruling the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a revision petition filed by the assessee for misrepresentation of financial facts in his tobacco business.

A single member bench comprising T.C.D. Sekhar(Justice) dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, concluding that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands and that the appeal lacked merit. In short,the revision petition filed by the assessee was dismissed.

Mali Tractors Private Limited vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 106

The High Court of Patna directed the lower authority to consider the appeal which failed to file within the prescribed time limit mentioned under section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, relying on the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) Notification for condoning delay. The court found that the notification itself was brought out on 02.11.2023 and in such circumstances any order passed in at least three months before that date; the time provided for filing an appeal, ought to have been considered for such beneficial treatment.

The Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits and set aside the order. Further held that “The petitioner shall appear before the AppellateAuthority with the copy of the judgment on 06.01.2025. On that date or on any other date fixed; with acknowledgement duly taken from the assessee or the authorized representative, the appeals shall be heard and disposed off on merits.”

Abhinav PratapRaju vs Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 107

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, which is an aviation academy, to address the service tax refund claims made by its students.

The High Court, comprising Justice Manish Mathur, granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application or representation either physically or by email, for a refund of the service tax. The respondents were directed to decide the matter within two months of receiving the representation, along with a copy of this order, particularly examining whether the tax was included in the petitioners’ fees, in line with the Delhi High Court judgment.

M/s.SRC ProjectsPrivate Limited vs The AssistantCommissioner of GST and and Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 108

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed the GST department to allow the re-credit of taxes paid under the reverse charge mechanism ( RCM ) during the transition to the GST regime. The court allowed the petitioner to transfer this tax credit into their electronic credit ledger but declined their request for a cash refund.

The court ordered the GST department to allow the petitioner to take re-credit of the amount paid under RCM on 30.12.2017. The court clarified that the petitioner was not entitled to a cash refund as the law does not provide for such refunds in this situation. The writ petition was allowed.

M/S SBW Udyog Ltd. VS The Commissioner Commercial Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 109

The Allahabad High Court Upholds ITC reversal on lubricants for traders under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act ( UP VAT ), 2008.

The bench also observed that the revisionist has not challenged the validity of the circular dated 17.01.2014 before any competent court, and under the revisional jurisdiction, the validity of the circular cannot be tested. Justice Piyush Agarwal dismissed the revision petition.

M/s.David RajaBharatgas Agency VS The Deputy State TaxOfficer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 110

The Madras High Court has granted a final opportunity for hearing to the LPG Cylinder distributor in the mismatch of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) returns between GSTR 3B, GSTR 1 and GSTR 9 for FY 2018-19.

The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. It further instructed that any amounts already recovered or paid, including pre-deposits, be adjusted against this 25% requirement. The assessing authority was directed with verifying the payments and intimating the petitioner of any remaining balance within one week of the court order.

Tvl.Sri VasupujyaJewels Rep. by its Proprietor vs StateTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 111

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that amounts recovered or paid, including pre-deposits made in Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) appeal, can be reduced or adjusted against the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement.

The court directed that any bank account attachments or garnishee proceedings be lifted once the petitioner complies with the order. It also stated that the disputed order would act as a show-cause notice, and the petitioner must submit objections within four weeks. If they fail to do so, the assessment order will be reinstated.

Tvl.Sri RengaSteels vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 112

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court granted the steel dealer an opportunity to explain discrepancies in their GST returns, specifically related to excess claims of Input Tax Credit (ITC) from cancelled dealers, return defaulters, and tax non-payers as the supplier underwent liquidation.

The court further directed that the entire process, including verification and balance payment, should be completed within four weeks and failure to comply would result in the restoration of the original order. Additionally, the court clarified that if any bank account attachments or garnishee proceedings were in place, they would be lifted upon compliance with the payment of 10% of the disputed taxes.

Bajaj HindusthanSugar Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatoryvs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Anr. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 113

The High Court of Allahabad quashed the penalty imposed on Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act due to lack of mens rea.

The HC further observed that “even otherwise on the plain 11 reading of Section 10(d) the phrase “reasonable cause” has been duly discharged by the revisionist by producing the certificate of an Engineer, thus necessary ingredients for levy of penalty have neither been alleged established or proved in the present case.”

Natesan vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 114

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court ruled that exemptions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act apply to interstate transactions in the absence of specific notifications under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act and granted relief to interstate sales of Gloriosa Superba.

The court quashed the impugned revision order dated 22.04.2022 and granted the petitioner the benefit of the TNVAT notification providing full exemption from tax on interstate sales of Gloriosa Superba. The writ petition was allowed with consequential relief granted to the petitioner.

Ms Sri GaneshSales vs State of U.P. and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 115

The High Court of Allahabad held that the GST appeal authority does not have powers to remand proceedings and quashed the order passed under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as the same was passed by grossly violating the principles of natural justice.

The High Court, composed of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit and Justice Shekhar B. Sraf, set aside the impugned order emphasizing the importance of following the principle of natural justice.

GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY & ORS vsUNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 116

The Gujarat High Court in a recent ruling held that Goods and Service Tax (GST) is not leviable on assignment/transfer of leasehold rights to third parties. The bench quashed the notices issued by the GST department that sought to recover tax on the transfer of GIDC plots to third parties from their original allottees.

The division bench of the High Court held that the transfer of leasehold rights to a third party would be a transfer of immovable property and therefore the question of ITC would not arise.

S A N GARMENTSMANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED vs PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 AND ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 117

The Delhi High Court in a significant judgment has held that no action may be initiated against ‘tax arrears’ once a full and final settlement certificate under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ( DTVSV Act ) is issued.

The two-member Bench of the Delhi High Court proceeded to set aside the impugned Form No.3 certificate, stating that the issuance of a final certificate under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act concludes all disputes regarding the ‘tax arrears’.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS CAPITAL POWER SYSTEMSLTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 118

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently held that no income tax reassessment may be initiated on the basis of mere ‘incidental’ or ‘tangential’ findings without the fulfilment of due conditions stipulated by Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Referencing multiple Supreme Court decisions, the Bench held that Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires strict and cautious application for invocation and may not be done on the basis of findings or directions that are only incidental, tangential, or beyond statutory authority. Observing no infirmity in the ITAT order, the Bench proceeded to dismiss the appeal, answering in favour of the Assessee.

M/S NS PAPERSLIMITED AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGHSECRETARY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 119

The Allahabad High Court in a recent case ruled that any new liability being fastened after the approval of the Resolution Plan would inherently and palpably be illegal and go beyond the Lakshman Rekha of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code ( IBC ), 2016.

The court quashed the impugned assessment order dated April 28, 2021 and held that in the event any penalty proceedings have been initiated by the department, the writ petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

UdumalpetSarvodaya Sangham vs The Authority CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 120

The personal delivery or e-mail notice of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) order should be provided before issuing in the GST portal or newspaper, ruled the Madurai bench of Madras High Court. It ruled that without such personal delivery, it violates the provision Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017.

Consequently, it set aside the impugned assessment orders and directed the petitioners to file replies to the show-cause notices by January 31, 2025. The authorities were instructed to provide a hearing opportunity and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.

SHISH JEWELSPRIVATE LIMITED vs THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 121

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court held that there is no provision in Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act ( GST ), 2017 which prohibits interim release of goods seized pending adjudication of show cause notice under the said section. The court directed the GST authority to release the seized gold Jewellery.

Further directed the 1st respondent to release the goods seized to the petitioner pending adjudication of show cause notice on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2,93,71,666/- (Rupees two crores ninety three lakhs seventy one thousand six hundred and sixty six only), being the penalty and fine quantified in lieu of confiscation of goods and on execution of bond for the value of goods.

M/s.Brunda InfraPvt. Limited vs The AdditionalCommissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 122

The Telangana high court in a recent ruling upheld the notifications issued by GST authorities, extending the timeframe for issuing show-cause notices related to tax recovery and input tax credit matters for the financial year 2019-20.

In this batch of matters, admittedly, the petitioners have a statutory efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. The court held that the petitioners may avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Tvl.J.S.Enterprisesvs The Deputy State Tax Officer-I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 123

The Madras High Court, addressing a case involving the fraudulent claim of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) based on bogus invoices discovered during an inspection, directed the GST department to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing.

The assessing authority was directed to verify the payments and notify the petitioner of any remaining balance within one week of receiving the order. The petitioner was required to clear the balance within three weeks of such intimation.

Subramani Babu vsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST), DeputyCommissioner (ST), Axis Bank, HDFC Bank CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 124

In a notable decision, the Madras High Court has observed that the amount recovered by the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) authorities can be adjusted towards 25% pre-deposit. The bench set aside the impugned order concerning the Assessment year 2018-19.

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the impugned order, stipulating that the petitioner must deposit the balance of 25% disputed taxes, if any, within the specified timelines. It further instructed the GST department to verify payments, intimate any remaining amounts, and lift bank attachments or garnishee proceedings upon compliance.

Saritha Impex& Marketing Private Limited vsSuperintendent of CGST & Central Excise CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 125

The Madras High Court set aside a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) order, which disallowed Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) for the assessment year 2019-20 on the ground that the claims were filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 16(4) of the GST Acts.

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, considering the submissions, the Court instructed the petitioner to submit objections within three weeks, along with relevant details, and directed the respondent to pass a revised order after providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. While the ITC issue was remanded, other aspects of the impugned order remained unaffected.

BONANZA ENTERPRISES VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 126

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court pointed at the need for modernizing the methods of serving customs notices, communications, and orders. The decision came in response to a writ petition filed against the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and others, challenging the non-receipt of a show cause notice ( SCN ) and subsequent ex-parte proceedings.

The court ordered the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to ensure compliance with the mandate of Section 153 of the Customs Act for serving notices via email and the common portal.

Wavy ConstructionLLP vs Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 127

In a notable judgment, the Bombay High Court held that the extended period for reopening of Income Tax Assessment cannot be done following a period of 10 months from the expiry of the statutory period of limitation for the reopening.

The notice for reassessment under Section 148 was issued on March 29, 2019. Under Section 153(2) of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer was required to complete the reassessment within nine months from the end of the financial year in which the notice was served. Even after accounting for the exclusion of the period during which proceedings were stayed by the court between December 13, 2019 and September 21, 2021, the reassessment order dated September 30, 2022, was issued nearly 10 months beyond the extended deadline. In light of such observations, the Bombay High Court allowed the Petition granting relief to Wavy Construction LLP.

Tvl.ThendralElectricals vs The Commissioner of CommercialTaxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 128

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed the assessee to rectify the clerical error which ultimately denied the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act.

The petition was directed to file the rectification petition within two weeks from the receipt of the order, and the court emphasized that failure to do so would result in the revival of the impugned order.

M/S.ASWATHY GASAGENCIES vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 129

In a recent case, the High Court of Kerala has held that Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) is not demandable in absence of any supply of goods/services.While confirming the findings in the impugned orders, the court declared that the respondent Corporation would not be entitled to collect tax under the provisions of the CGST Act 2017/SGST, Act 2017 from the petitioners.

A single bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that the respondents are not entitled to collect GST from the petitioners. While confirming the findings in the impugned orders, it is declared that the respondent Corporation would not be entitled to collect tax under the provisions of the CGST Act 2017/SGST, Act 2017 from the petitioners.

The Shri SaibabaSansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs The Union ofIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 130

The Bombay High Court granted relief to the The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust – Shirdi (Saibaba Trust), preventing the Revenue from reopening the assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15.

The Bench further affirmed the charitable status of the trust noting that the Section 80G certificate had been valid during the relevant period and that the original assessment had rightfully recorded the disclosures including anonymous donations and donations in kind received by the Trust. In light of the observations, the Bench proceeded to allow the petition impugning the reassessment Orders purported by the Revenue.

M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vsTheCommissioner, CT and GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 131

The Orissa High Court has quashed the increased tax demand against Coca Cola as the enhancement was without proper intimation to assessee. It was found that the petitioner was entitled to a notice of hearing if the rectification resulted in an increase in the amount of interest.

The judgment further stated that the petitioner was entitled to a notice of hearing if the rectification resulted in an increase in the amount of interest. The clause does not support the idea that aggregate demand will stay the same. The court set aside the impugned rectification order and quashed the same.

Delhi HC observes Non-Maintainability of Limitation-based Service Tax case, Advises SC Appeal u/s 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 [Read Order]

HARISH KUMAR K.P vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 133

The Kerala High Court recently granted relief to Petitioners owning the relatively new ‘BH series’ registered vehicles, holding that they are liable to be taxed as per the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 as per the principles of the Central Motor Vehicle (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021.

However, Justice D.K. Singh clarified that while the states are not obliged to implement the rate of tax as per the Central Rules, the State Governments may only levy taxes as per the principles prescribed under sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 51B of the Central Motor Vehicle (Twentieth Amendment) Rules 2021.

An Income Tax appeal should not be filed merely because Tax Effect exceeds Monetary limits prescribed: Chhattisgarh HC [Read Order]

M/s. M.P. Jay Jagannath Transport, Kendujhar vs StateTaxOfficer, CT and GST Circle, Keonjhar and other CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 135

The Orissa High Court set aside ex parte order passed under section 73 of Orissa Goods and Services Tax (OGST) Act, 2017 made after filing a delayed reply to Show Cause Notice issued. The court decided as above as the assessee submitted some of the documents like GSTR 9 and GSTR 9C before the time prescribed.

Considering the circumstance, the division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha And Justice M.S. Sahoo set aside the impugned order and stated that the petitioner will communicate certified copy of the order to opposite party no.2 by 24th January, 2025 and obtain a date of personal hearing.

Duty to Submit Evidence during Hearing Lies with SCN Recipient, Never Expect Dept’s Call: Madras HC [Read Order]

St.Alphonsa Trust vsAssessment Unit, Income Tax Department CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 136

The Madras High Court has held that when a show cause notice is issued on specific allegations, the burden lies on the noticee to produce relevant documents to support their case, and the assessee cannot expect the department to call for further evidence. A writ petition filed by a charitable trust running a medical college and hospital, which challenged an assessment order adding ₹59.03 crore and ₹77 lakh relating to loan transactions to its taxable income under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.

While rejecting the plea of violation of natural justice, Justice Kumaresh Babu noted that the petitioner had participated in the video conferencing hearing and explained the transactions but failed to submit adequate documentary evidence. The Court held that the responsibility to substantiate claims rests with the recipient of the SCN and cannot be shifted to the assessing authority.

Limitation for TRAN-1 Declaration u/r 117 CGST is Mandatory and Not Directory: Rajasthan HC [Read Order]

Signature Forgery in Form F Filed with Counter Statement: Madras HC releases VAT Liability of deceased Person and his Representatives [Read Order]

D.Sekar VS The AssistantCommissioner (State Tax) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 138

Imperial Consultants and Securities Ltd. VSDeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 140

The Bombay High Court recently halted Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings against a petitioner, observing that no copy of approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment had been served upon the Assessee.

Granting relief to the Petitioner, the Bench reiterated that the duty of the Revenue to demonstrate that escapement of income occurred due to failure of the Assessee to disclose relevant details to warrant reassessment; here, a mere change of opinion cannot call for reassessment as per the procedural safeguards of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

M/s.Vadivel Coco Tech Private Limited vs The StateTaxOfficer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 141

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the State Tax Officer to refund an amount prematurely debited, criticizing the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account despite the pending appeal.

The court directed the respondent to refund the amount within two weeks without requiring the petitioner to file a separate request. The court disposed of the writ petition allowing the petitioner to pursue their appeal with the appellate authority.

Shaikh Wahed Yakub VS The Additional Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 142

The Bombay High Court recently granted relief to a village panchayat member, observing that no disqualification under Section 41(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 may be initiated on the grounds of non-payment and arrears of Grampanchayat Taxes.

Referring to the failure of the Petitioner to adequately prove the proper service of notice as per manner and mode of service or bill or writ under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, the Bench upheld the orders by the Collector and Commissioner therein and dismissed the Writ Petition.

Lakshmi Periyasamy vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 143

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court quashed a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order issued against a deceased individual, on the grounds of being null and void.

The Madras High Court thus invalidated the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order against a deceased individual, emphasizing jurisdictional flaws and ensuring compliance with legal procedures for legal heirs.

Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Private Limited vs UnionOfIndia and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 144

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently granted relief to Shapoorji Pallonji Group, directing the remand of a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) dispute regarding the refund of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) amounts deposited in the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Acceding to the Petitioner’s submissions, the Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam set aside the Order-in-Appeal and the Order-In-Original passed by the precursory appellate authorities and remanded the matter to the Respondents for reconsideration in light of Circular No.166/22/2021-GST within a period of 3 months from the present Order.

HOLY LAND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED vs SALES TAXOFFICERCLASS II/AVATO WARD 205 ZONE 11 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 145

The Delhi High Court recently remanded a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) pertaining to Goods and Services Tax (GST), observing that the Respondent Sales Tax Officer had passed the impugned order without proper reasoning, non-application of mind, and abstained from considering the reply filed by the taxpayer.

Remarking lack of reasoning, non-consideration of the reply and non-application of mind in passing the impugned order dated 31st August, 2024, the Delhi High Court remanded the Show-Cause Notice for fresh consideration in light of the replies filed by the Petitioner, while directing that the matter be assigned to a different Proper Officer who shall be required to meritoriously adjudicate the SCN within a period of two months after providing the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

TAVRUR OILS AND FATS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 146

The Delhi High Court recently directed the Revenue to refund Service Tax paid on Ocean Freight as per the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) Contract, observing that no levy may be ascribed following the declaration of invalidity of the service tax.

Noting that the declaration of invalidity nullifies the levy, the Bench directed the authorities to process and refund the service tax paid by the petitioners along with applicable interest, reaffirming the supersedence of constitutional mandates against double taxation and unlawful levies

Gains from Excluded Capital Assets not included as Book Profits u/s 115JB Not Liable to be included as Income: Delhi HC [Read Order]

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 NEW DELHI vs M/SHESPERA REALITY PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 147

The Delhi High Court has held that capital gains eligible for statutory exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act cannot be brought to tax under normal provisions merely because such gains were not included in “book profits” under Section 115JB. The ruling came in an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order allowing M/s Hespera Realty Pvt. Ltd. to claim exemption of ₹2,47,52,73,951 as long-term capital gains for AY 2015-16, which had earlier been denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the gains were not reflected in the profit and loss account and were excluded from MAT computation.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the proviso to Section 10(38) only clarifies inclusion of exempt capital gains for MAT purposes under Section 115JB and does not operate in reverse to tax such gains under normal provisions if they are excluded from book profits. Observing that the Revenue had not challenged the treatment of the amount as capital reserve before the ITAT, the Court found no infirmity in the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT and accordingly dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

Banmeet Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 148

The Uttarakhand High Court, on January 7, 2025, dismissed the bail application of Banmeet Singh, who faces charges of money laundering and drug trafficking under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The court refrained from making any determinations on whether the word “elsewhere” in the U.S. plea agreement extended to India but maintained that such issues would be scrutinized in subsequent legal proceedings.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates