Mishal J. Shah HUF vs State of Maharashtra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 149

The Bombay High Court recently accepted an unconditional apology rendered by officers of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, in light of their arrest of the Petitioner while his opportunity to record statement had been scheduled at a later date.

The Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla accepted the apologies tendered by the GST Authorities and discharged the SCN issued against them, while issuing caution to take strict care before any arrest is made, in order to ensure the letter of law.

Delhi HC dismisses Application of “Transfer of Right to Use” of Goods under Central Sales and DVAT Act w/o Transfer of Effective Control and Possession.

ATUL PUNJ vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 150

The High Court of Delhi ruled in favour of the petitioner and allowed the former director to travel abroad by recognising the right to travel abroad as a part of personal liberty subject to certain conditions.

Thus, Justice Sanjeev Narula permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of 15 days and upheld his right to travel abroad under Article 21.

Andhra Pradesh HC stays ICAI Notification removing CA accused of Fake GST Invoicing [Read Order]

Ca Akshay Jain VS The Institute Of Chartered AccountantsOf India and Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 151

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed the publication of an ICAI notification removing a Chartered Accountant’s name from the register of members, in a case involving allegations of fake GST invoices and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The writ petition was filed by CA Akshay Jain, an associate member of ICAI, challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated on a complaint by the Director General of GST Intelligence.

Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda observed that although the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 22(G) of the Chartered Accountants Act, the urgency of the matter justified interim protection. The Court stayed the Gazette notification removing the petitioner’s name, directing him to file a statutory appeal within four weeks along with an application for interim relief. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, leaving the disciplinary issues to be examined by the appellate authority.

M/S PAWAN HANS LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 152

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that no “transfer of right to use” of Goods shall stand effectuated under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( CST Act ) and the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) without the transfer of effective control and possession, validating transfer of right to use goods as contemplated under Section 2(g)(vi) of the CST Act and Section 2(zc)(vi) of the DVAT Act.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court allowed the Appeals, setting aside the decision of the Tribunals, granting relief to the Assessee and effectively vitiating the applicability of VAT or sales tax since no “deemed sales” took place.

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTN---'L vs WESTERN UNIONFINANCIAL SERVICE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 153

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a Liaison Office (LO) of Western Union does not satisfy the established requirements for considering the same to be a fixed place “permanent establishment” (PE).

In light of the observations made, the Delhi High Court upheld the impugned decisions of the ITAT in holding that there was no DAPE established by Western Union and that the usage of software does not constitute the creation of a PE, dismissing the Revenue’s plea of taxability.

The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a Petitioner, holding that no attachment of bank account or garnishee proceedings may be undertaken against the Petitioner alleged to have averted tax liabilities, upon the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount in question.

The Bench clarified that if any recovery proceedings by means of attachment of Bank Account or Garnishee proceedings had been undertaken against the Petitioner, and were in-force at the time, the same would stand lifted/withdrawn upon the payment of the 25% disputed tax as directed by the High Court.

PINNACLE VEHICLES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vsJOINTCOMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 155

The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of State GST officers’ authority to issue notices under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, dismissing a petition that challenged their jurisdiction and scope of cross empowerment in GST laws.

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the state officers had acted within their rights in issuing the show-cause notice. The bench also noted that the petitioner can still challenge the notice through legal channels.

M/s. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Ltd vsAsst. Commissioner Of Central Tax and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 156

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a recent decision held that flavoured milk comes under GST Tariff Heading 0402 and deleted a tax evasion penalty.

The bench, comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheshwara Rao Kuncheam, quashed the penalty that was levied against the petitioner and allowed the writ petition.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs INTERNATIONALCOALVENTURES PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 157

The Delhi High Court recently cancelled an income tax addition of ₹31 Lakh based on the accrual of interest from surplus funds parked in fixed deposits, earmarked for the acquisition of a coal mine.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that the interest-bearing funds deposited by ICVL are not ‘surplus funds’ but funds that were called for and earmarked for the specific purpose of acquiring a coal mine. Consequently, the appeal was answered in favour of ICVL and against the Revenue.

GRID SOLUTIONS OY (LTD) vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 158

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently quashed several reassessment notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) against Grid Solutions OY (LTD) for Assessment Years ( AYs ) 2013-14 to 2017-18. The court observed that reassessment proceedings could not be based on outdated or irrelevant facts obtained from prior years without establishing their relevance to the years under scrutiny.

Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the reassessment proceedings initiated were not legally tenable. Consequently, the notices for Assessment Years 2013-2018 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs VEDANTA LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 159

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court on January 17, 2025, dismissed an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against Vedanta Limited, holding that framing a transfer pricing order against a non-existent entity constitutes a fundamental flaw, not curable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in confirmation with and conformity to the Maruti Suzuki ruling by the Supreme Court.

In the recent ruling, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that, without any intent to assess the resultant entity, the transfer pricing order could neither have been rectified nor would it be saved by Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, in reference to the transfer pricing order issued against a non-existent entity.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS SAMSUNGELECTRONICSCO. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 160

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court affirmed that the secondment of employees by Samsung Korea to its Indian subsidiaries would not affirm the creation of a Permanent Establishment ( PE ) in India in terms of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) between India and Korea.

Senior Standing Counsel Sanjay Kumar, SSC appeared for the Revenue along with Junior Standing Counsels Monica Benjamin and Easha Kadian while Samsung Electronics was represented by Himanshu S. Sinha, Prashant Meharchandani, Jainender Singh Kataria and Kanika Jain.

ROHIT KUMAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54 (1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 161

The Delhi High Court has clarified the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) does not validate the authority of a Joint Commissioner to grant approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiating reassessment proceedings.

The Department contended that the Abhinav Jindal judgment was outdated due to Rajeev Bansal. However, the court clarified that Rajeev Bansal did not support Joint Commissioner approvals under the amended regime. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings in question were held to be invalid under law.

KAMAL ENVIROTECH PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF GST AND ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 162

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 129 of the CGST Act cannot be used to impose penalties for minor e-way bill errors. The court held that such errors constitute minor procedural breaches, and penalties should not be imposed without considering the principles of moderation and proportionality outlined in Section 126.

The court emphasizes that non-obstante clauses should be interpreted within the context of the entire statute. They should not be applied broadly to override other relevant provisions. The court highlights the importance of considering the entire statute and its overall purpose when interpreting specific clauses

Champions Steel Industries Private Limited VS UnionofIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 163

The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, set aside an Order-in-Original ( O-I-O ) issued against the petitioner, Champions Steel Industries Private Limited, citing procedural lapses in the service of notices.

A two-member bench comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain quashed the O-I-O. It also remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The court specifically directed the respondents to ensure that all future notices and communications are sent to the petitioner’s correct address at “A/3, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400009” or their registered email ID.

M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. vs AssistantExcise& Taxation Commissioner and another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 164

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that the penalty provision under Section 16(7) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax (HP VAT) Act, 2005, cannot be applied unless the statutory authority establishes the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act.

The Court also highlighted that the purpose of legislation should guide the exercise of discretion, ensuring that penalties are not imposed on unintentional defaulters who are otherwise law-abiding.

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX KOLKATA vs M/SELECTROSTEELCASTINGS LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 165

In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court ruled that services rendered in implementing government projects for public utilities are not eligible for service tax under the Works Contract Service category.

The Court clarified that payments made under a mistaken interpretation of tax liability fall outside the purview of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reminding that the department had no authority to retain such funds.

Sanjay Jindal VS State of U.P. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 166

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to GST Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) fraud accused citing the rejection of a co-offender’s bail as evidence of strong charges and the high risk of tampering with evidence and witnesses.

The court ruled that the accusations against Sanjay Jindal were serious and supported by much evidence, including confessions from co-accused and material recovered during investigations. So, the court rejected the bail application.

Deepak Agrawal vs Sanjay Agrawal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 167

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that it lacks the authority to exercise writ jurisdiction over a District Judge’s ruling, which upholds the imposition of property taxes and makes the District Judge the Appellate Authority under the Municipal Corporation Act 1956.

Single judge Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas viewed that the writ petition is not maintainable and the Civil Revision is maintainable. The petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy of filing Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

All India Central Bank Officers Federation vs UnionofIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 168

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court stated that requiring higher-paid bank employees to bear a proportionately higher tax burden was justified and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and upheld the constitutional validity of the 2007 amendments to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court rejected the claim that the amendments constituted an impermissible judicial override or contradicted the principles established in Arun Kumar. The court explained that his amendments were consistent with judicial observations and addressed the gap without overstepping legislative competence. The court dismissed the writ petitions.

KBS INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR VS THE CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 169

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the imposition of ₹1.15 Crore Penalty against a trader, averring that Order passed by the Settlement Commission in regards to adjudication of a specific issue cannot be chosen in parts, and that the concerned trader is required to follow the provisions of the order in full.

The Impugned Settlement Commission order explicitly provides that the order would be void, vitiating all granted immunities if the Petitioners fail to comply with the provisions of the Order. In light of the observations made, the Delhi High Court upheld the Petitioner’s liabilities to pay requisite duties from the date of clearance of the imported goods.

KBS INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR VS THE CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 169

In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court affirmed that the localized sale of goods imported under Advance Authorization, with duty exemptions, shall result in a breach of the concerned seller’s export obligations.

In closing, the Delhi High Court upheld the interest levy of interest of ₹1,15,13,067/- calculated by the Settlement Commission while dismissing the contest of the constitutional validity of the Customs Notification since the Petitioners failed to substantively challenge the same.

Rakesh Brijlal Jain and Ors. vs State of MaharashtraandOrs. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 170

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Milind N. Jadhav quashed criminal proceedings against the developers Rakesh Brijlal Jain and others, initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Imposing exemplary costs, the court directed the complainant and the ED to pay ₹1,00,000 each to designated law libraries as a warning against misuse of judicial resources. However, the order was stayed, after the judgment was pronounced in Court, Mr. Shirsat, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 – ED prayed for stay of judgment to challenge the same before superior Court. His request for stay was allowed for a limited period of time.

NITENDER THAKUR VS ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 171

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that issuing two separate orders under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017, for the same tax period appears prima facie unsustainable.

The court directed that the operation and effect of the order dated 26th April 2024 be stayed until the next hearing. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on 4th March 2025.

SHRI SHAMBHU PRASAD vs THE STATE OF ASSAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 172

The Gauhati High Court has held that the order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service (CGST), Act, 2017 must mandatorily be signed by the proper officer.The Court believes that the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice.

Under such circumstances, the Court believes that the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The court set aside the impugned order.

M/s Panacea Biotec Limited vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 173

The issue involved was whether the GST Authorities can levy GST on a Deed of Assignment under which the land and the building constructed thereon is transferred by a Lessee to the 3rd party.

The Gujarat High Court in the earlier ruling had held that Goods and Service Tax (GST) is not leviable on assignment/transfer of leasehold rights to third parties. The bench also 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.

Satya Prakash Singh vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 174

In a decision in support of the tax practitioner, the Jharkhand High Court observed that a lawyer cannot be held accountable for confirming documents his client filed to register a proprietary business for tax avoidance. Satya Prakash Singh, the applicant, was granted anticipatory bail by the court.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that “it is a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 50,000/-and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.to the satisfaction of J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur.”

Akash Jana vs State of West Bengal & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 175

The Calcutta High Court, considering that the petitioner is a small businessman and there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner, condoned the delay of 5 days in filing appeal under Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST). It was viewed that the petitioner had also made a pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal, which proves there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner.

While setting aside the order, the court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal and directed the appellate authority to hear out and dispose of the appeal, on merit, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.

DHARMENDRA AGARWAL vs THE UNIONOF INDIA AND 2 ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 176

The Gauhati High Court ruled that Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, which gives a Commissioner the authority to make an arrest under the Act, mandates that the authority document not only “reasons to believe” that an assessee committed the specified offense but also the necessity of making an arrest.

The Court observed that the Petitioner had been called in, had been subjected to a lengthy interrogation, and that the investigating authorities had also recorded his statements. The bench granted the petitioner interim bail after concluding that there was no prima facie evidence from the documents presented at the stage that his custody was required to avoid evidence tampering or that he would likely interfere with ongoing investigations.

Mita Parida vs RTO, Dhenkanal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 177

The Orissa High Court in a case related to seizure of vehicles due to non-payment of Motor Vehicle Tax , directed to release the seized vehicle on payment of tax dues under Odisha Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975( OMVT).

It was further directed that the Petitioner shall produce the original driving license of the Driver of the offending vehicle. The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking to cooperate with the Authorities for compounding/contesting the challan raised in respect of the aforesaid vehicle.

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. vs THE ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 178

The Kerala High Court ruled that an income tax assessing officer cannot remain oblivious to claim without enquiry and dismissed the appeal of Cochin International Airport.

The Tribunal concluded rightly that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The court viewed that the order impugned in the appeal does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.

Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chhuttani Trust VS CommissionerofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 179

In a recent case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that granting approval under section 80g(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely relying on the instrument creating the trust is not valid. It was viewed that the order is based only on assumptions and there is not supportive evidence.

The Bench held that “We are not prepared to place any such interpretation on the language implied in Section 80G so as to uphold an obligation on the part of the Commissioner to grant an approval to a trust merely by looking at the instrument creating the Trust and shutting its eyes towards the activities actually carried out by it.”

Truth Udyog Metal and Steel Private Limited & Anr.vsThe Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 180

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court held that the penalty under section 129 of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017 is not invokable merely on non-disclosure of full details of supplier in e way bills. The bench held that the appellants are entitled to apply for refund of the penalty, which was remitted by them without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

While allowing the petition, the Court set aside the order and held that the appellants are entitled to apply for refund of the penalty, which was remitted by them without prejudice to their rights and contentions and if such application is filed.

The Chamber of Tax Consultants through its PresidentvsDirector General of Income Tax (systems) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 181

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court ruled that the rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to the total tax liability of eligible taxpayers, including tax on income charged at special rates, unless explicitly excluded by law.

The court directed the CBDT to ensure the e-filing utility aligns with the law, allowing taxpayers to exercise their statutory right to self-assessment and claim the rebate as per their understanding. The court ordered tax authorities to review previous filings where Section 87A claims were disallowed due to utility restrictions and to process refunds for eligible taxpayers.

VIJAY ENTERPRISES & ANR vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 182

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued in 2008 and an Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2024, citing an unjustified 15-year delay in adjudication. The court rejected the customs department’s justification for the delay, including the repeated placement of the matter in the “call book.”

The court criticized the passing of the Order-in-Original during the pendency of the writ petition, stating that it constituted an attempt at judicial proceedings. It clarified that administrative action cannot proceed in parallel when the court is actively adjudicating the validity of the underlying SCN. The court quashed both the SCN and the Order-in-Original ruling that the excessive delay and procedural lapses rendered the proceedings invalid.

M/s. Vedanta Ltd.Jharsuguda vs Union of India and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 183

The Orissa High Court has ordered Vedanta to respond to the show cause notice about ₹8,02,84,232, which the government believes was an incorrectly obtained input tax credit (ITC).The court held that the authority says and will pass order by 5th February, 2025.

Acting Chief Justice Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo’s bench has held that the Vedanta petitioner will respond to the contested show-cause notice. Vedanta is free to include any point, including the point of limitation, in it. The order will be issued by February 5, 2025, according to the authority.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICERvs SMT.PREETHI V CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 184

The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative. It was found that the procedures were started against the deceased Assessee while he was still alive and may have been carried out against his attorneys.

The bench held this after rejecting an appeal from the Income Tax officer contesting a one-judge bench ruling that had supported Preethi V’s petition and revoked the demand and penalty notices as well as any further legal actions that may have followed.

M/s Jyoti Tar ProductsPrivate Limited & Anr. vs TheDeputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 185

The Calcutta High Court has held that the pre-show cause notice (SCN) reply should be considered before issuing SCN under Goods and Service Tax Act (GST), Act , 2017.The court found that the show-cause notice is a replica of the intimation given earlier and all that the assessing officer has said is that the reply furnished by the appellants in response to the intimation is not found to be satisfactory and hence, not acceptable.

The court quashed the show-cause notice issued under Section 74(1) and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to consider the reply and if it still finds it to be not satisfactory, it will be well-open to the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Amit Kashyap vsPrincipal Secretary & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 186

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has admitted a petition challenging the eligibility conditions for the appointment of a Technical Member in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

The case has garnered considerable head-turns, with interested ones across the country closely watching the progression. In the interim, the High Court has restrained the Government from making any further appointments, delaying the functioning of the GSTAT further, albeit for judicial reasons.

Vineet Jain vs Union OfIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 187

The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to 10.87 crores, based on forged transactions and also manipulated the bills showing transportation of goods from Delhi to Jaipur. The court found that the material collected by the department prima facie exhibits that the petitioner was fraudulently profited from the ITC based on sham bills obtained or procured in the name of non-existing firms.

The court refused to grant bail on the ground that the material collected by the department prima facie exhibits that the petitioner was fraudulently profited from the ITC based on sham bills obtained or procured in the name of non-existing firms.

M/S. X L INTERIORS vsDEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 188

In a recent case, the High Court of Kerala viewed that the bunching of show cause notices does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as it is open to the petitioner to take up any contention peculiar to any particular year in the reply to the show cause notice.

The Single bench of Justice Gopinath P directed that the time for filing a reply to show cause notice shall be extended till 21.11.2024. Since the extension of time is at the request of the petitioner, any limitation for passing orders for any of the financial years will also stand extended by similar period i.e. the period from 21.10.2024 (last date for filing reply as per show cause notice) till 21.11.2024 will stand excluded.

Mukti Gold PrivateLimited vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 189

The Madras High Court recently upheld the confiscation of Gold Jewellery claimed by a jeweller to be transported from Mumbai to Tamil Nadu for the purpose of displaying at exhibitions and to potential resellers, observing violation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) provisions intended to provide leeways for the transport procedure.

Observing that the overriding effect of Section 129 over Section 130 of TNGST Act would be applicable only for matters regarding detention and seizure of goods and not confiscation, the Court upheld the decision of the Revenue Authorities and dismissed the Writ while granting livery to the Petitioner to file their reply to the confiscation notice within 14 days of the order for appropriate adjudication.

Sunrise Marine Servicesvs The Assistant Commissioner Stand Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 190

Read More: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati recently quashed an Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 observing that no Director Identification Number (DIN) was mentioned in the Assessment Order.

In light of the precedents set by the aforesaid judgments, the Andhra Pradesh High Court proceeded to set aside the impugned proceedings passed by the Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 while maintaining their liberty to conduct fresh assessment after providing due notice and assigning DIN to the new assessment order.

Tvl Ponnusamy vs TheDeputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 191

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal before the GST appellate authority, citing the petitioner’s lack of awareness about notices uploaded on the GST portal and the returns filed by a part-time accountant.

The court set aside the appellate authority’s rejection order and directed it to accept the appeal and decide it on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The writ petition was disposed of, and the miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.

ABHINAV JINDAL vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 52 1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 192

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot issue a fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed limitation period if the initial notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued without following due procedure.

The court emphasized that the Revenue must adhere to legal procedures and initiate reassessment proceedings within the prescribed time frame. It also noted that no stay order prevented the Revenue from issuing a fresh notice within the limitation period. The petition was thus allowed, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX vs MOHAMMED SALIH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 193

The Kerala High Court has held that Money in bank account is a ‘property’ and liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

As a result, it is clear that the authorities must make a determination on the likely demand, which at that point is obviously impossible to specify precisely. The amount of property that is attached, including the money that is attached to bank accounts, should, nevertheless, be in proportion to the likely demand, including the penalty. The bench allowed the appeal.

Deltatech GamingLimited vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 194

The Calcutta High Court, in its recent judgement has held that the non-disclosure of sensitive information gathered by Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) forming the basis of search operation is not violative of principles of natural justice.

The Court made it clear that, especially when delicate third-party interests are at stake, the principles of natural justice do not grant a right to indiscriminate or irrelevant disclosures. Furthermore, it was held that as the department had already given the petitioner access to all of the cited documents, the withholding of sensitive material in this case was appropriate and did not violate natural justice principles.

S. KUSHALCHANDINTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. vs THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 195

The Gujarat High Court in a recent case has held that the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax (DGGI) Intelligence (DGGI) is empowered to transfer adjudication of Show cause notice (SCN) in GST evasion.

The court ruled that, generally speaking, the court should not interfere with a show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it lacks jurisdiction, is prohibited by law, or has an invalid patent. There are no requirements in the case’s facts to consider this writ petition, and at this point, no intervention in writ jurisdiction is necessary.

ANJALI PANDEY vs UNIONOF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 196

In a recent decision affecting tourists carrying Gold Ornaments, of both Indian and Foreign Origin, the Delhi HIgh Court has issued interim guidelines to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) regarding treatment of gold ornaments as ‘personal effects’ and issuance of detention receipts.

The directions were to be followed henceforth by the Customs Department in all cases where jewellery is seized or detained from tourists of either Indian or foreign origin.

PMLA Scam of Investment in Cloud Particles: Punjab & Haryana HC refuses to Defreeze Bank Account [Read Order]

Vuenow Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 197

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to de-freeze the bank accounts of Vuenow Infotech Pvt. Ltd., which is under investigation for allegedly inducing thousands of investors to invest in non-existent “cloud particles” and routing huge financial transactions through group entities.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal held that under Section 5(5) of the PMLA, the ED is required to place the matter before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days, and all stakeholders would have the opportunity to present their case at that stage. Observing that the statutory adjudicatory mechanism was available, the Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all objections before the Adjudicating Authority under FEMA and the PMLA.

MUHAMMED SUHAIB P C. vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 198

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition against show cause notice (SCN) and provisional attachment order under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 on availability of statutory remedy.

The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas court viewed that the petitioner can raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority and since such a remedy is available, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner is at liberty to file an objection within a period of three weeks from today.

M/s.Annai AngammalArakkattalai (Pre Mahal) vs The JointCommissioner or GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 199

In a recent decision, the Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the act of taking a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration and paying tax dues after an inspection cannot be termed voluntary, upholding the imposition of penalty on the GST taxpayer.

Observing that, “Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct. There have been contraventions of provisions of the GST Act for which the petitioner is liable to make good the non-payment and also suffer penal consequences for the same”, the Madras High Court bench dismissed the writ petition.

Income Tax on House Property should be Paid by Person who Benefits from Income, not just Registered Owner: Delhi HC [Read Order]

SMT. SHIVANI MADAN VSPR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-01 CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 200

The Delhi High Court has held that income from house property must be taxed in the hands of the person who actually receives or is entitled to receive the income, and not merely on the basis of being named as an owner in the sale deed. An appeal was filed by Shivani Madan, who challenged the ITAT’s decision upholding the Assessing Officer’s view that rental income from a jointly purchased house property should be equally taxed between her and her husband.

The Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that mere inclusion of a person’s name in the sale deed does not establish ownership for income-tax purposes. Noting that the tax authorities failed to show that the appellant received or was entitled to receive any rental income, the Court set aside the ITAT’s order and held that tax liability cannot be imposed solely on the basis of title ownership, granting consequential relief to the appellant.