Lupin Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 251

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed an arbitrary notice issued seeking to reopen the assessment for Lupin Limited without any fresh evidence.

The court allowed the petition and set aside the reopening notice dated 31 March 2021 and the order dated 30 November 2021, which had rejected the company’s objections.

M/s Diwakar Road Lines vs The Union Of India and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 252

A writ petition contesting the denial of an application to compound all prior service tax through a one-time settlement was dismissed by a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court composed of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath. The bench held that a designated committee may reject an application for compounding tax over bogus documents under the Sabkha Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019.

According to the court, the Designated Committee has the authority to reject applications that were submitted using forged documents. Any other opinion would imply that anyone seeking the program’s benefits might provide any type of paper, and the designated committee would not be allowed to investigate whether or not the document is authentic. Extreme circumstances would arise from such a viewpoint.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER vs MINIMOL SABU CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 253

The Division bench of the Kerala High Court, which was composed of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S., declared that a show cause notice issued at the preliminary stage under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 cannot be challenged using writ authority under Article 226.

The court instructed the first respondent/assessee to appear before the adjudicating officer on 10.2.2025 and issue a further directive to the proper officer under Section 74of the CGST Act/SGST Act to complete the hearing on 10.2.2025 itself and pass a composite final order on or before 15.2.2025, since the assessee had already been given notice to appear before the adjudicating authority/proper officer on that date.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 254

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed Rs. 2,000 crore income tax notice by the Income Tax Department against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (the petitioner), holding that the reassessment notice was time-barred and based solely on a change of opinion rather than new or tangible information.

The court quashed the reassessment proceedings and the notice issued on April 1, 2016, holding that the notice was invalid and time-barred. The court confirmed that any action under Section 147 must be based on new and tangible information and not on a reassessment of previously disclosed facts. The writ petition was allowed.

M/S Agarwal Steels vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2AndAnother CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 255

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the mere absence of an e-tax invoice due to a technical glitch in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) portal does not amount to tax evasion if all other transit documents are in place.

Consequently, the Bench quashed both the impugned orders while directing the authorities to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner within two months from the submission of a certified copy of the order.

Nikhil Chandrakar vs Directorate of Enforcement ThroughItsDeputy Director CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 256

The Chattisgarh High Court refused to grant bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on failure to fulfil the condition of section 45 of the act. It was found that the applicant has not prima facie reversed the burden of proof and dislodged the prosecution case which is a mandatory requirement to get bail.

Since the applicant is unable to fulfill twin conditions for grant of bail as per Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 and also considering the submission that the applicant has not prima facie reversed the burden of proof and dislodged the prosecution case which is mandatory requirement to get bail, the single bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas refused to grant bail.

Mr. Laxmikant Tiwari vs Anti-CorruptionBureau/economicOffence Wing CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 257

The Chattisgarh High Court rejected the bail application against an offence registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court’s rejection was due to the material evidence which shows active involvement of the accused in the crime.

Considering the material evidence which shows the active involvement of the applicant with the offence, the single bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas viewed that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail. The court rejected the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

M/s. AKM Beverages and Manikandan Contractor vsTheAssistant Commissioner (ST) Ranipet SIPCOT Assessment Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 258

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand orders, terming them “ex parte.” The court observed that the taxpayer had voluntarily paid the GST liability before the issuance of the demand order, yet the authorities failed to provide an opportunity for a hearing. It was evident that the order was passed without considering the updated status of the case, leading to a violation of natural justice.

The court allowed the writ petition and emphasized that taxpayers must be given a fair opportunity to present their case before any demand orders are finalized.

Oxford University Press vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 259

In a recent case on Oxford University Press, the Bombay High Court has ruled that unless the “jurisdictional parameters” of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are met, the mere fact that the tax rate that applies to an assessee increases in subsequent assessment years (AYs) does not serve as justification for initiating a reassessment action against it for prior AYs.

The court while allowing the appeal quashed the reassessment order passed against Oxford University Press, merely because its tax status was changed from ‘resident’ to ‘non-resident’, making it subject to a 40% tax rate instead of 30%.

M/s.Kayram Builders vs The Deputy state Tax Officer-I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 260

The Madras High Court recently quashed a GST demand order, citing procedural lapses and violations of natural justice. Even though the 50% disputed tax was deposited in the wrong head, the court noted severe procedural lapses in the matter.

The court also directed the petitioner to submit their objections and relevant documents within two weeks of making the pre-deposit. Upon receiving the reply, the GST authorities must provide a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before issuing a fresh order in accordance with the law.

M/s. MATAJI HARDWARE vs Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 261

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order due to procedural lapses, including the belated upload of the show cause notice on the GST portal, which deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to respond. The case has been remanded for fresh consideration, subject to a pre-deposit condition.

Additionally, the bench directed the petitioner to file a reply with supporting documents within two weeks thereafter. The tax authorities are directed to issue a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned GST demand order was set aside.

ATEESH AGARWAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 262

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a husband seeking an inquiry by the Income Tax Department into an alleged ₹2 crore cash transaction and other financial dealings by his estranged wife’s family.

While dismissing the Petition, the Delhi High Court commented that the petition has been lodged in terms of a matrimonial feud between the Petitioner and his wife (Respondent No.3) and concerns issued outside the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department, the same not being under statutory scheme or a regulatory mechanism available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus the question of non-response to such complaint constituting violation of fundamental right or even a civil or statutory right of the petitioner is non-existent.

Routhu Sai Kondala Rao @ Sai vs The State of AndhraPradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 263

Anticipatory bail has been granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in cybercrime instances involving UPI, benami, and hawala transactions. The court found that the Cyber Crime Police, on credible information, commenced the investigation and crores of rupees with a number of bank accounts, UPI transactions including benami and hawala transactions was involved in the case.

The petitioner herein shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned one in a week 4 i.e. on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.”

M/s Diwakar Road Lines vs The Union Of India and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 264

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the rejection of M/s Diwakar Road Lines’ application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS), ruling that the petitioner relied on an unauthorized tax notice issued by an official without jurisdiction.

The High Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner’s SVLDRS application was justified. It stated that fraudulent or unauthorized documents could not be used to claim benefits under the scheme and that allowing such claims would set a dangerous precedent. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was ineligible for relief under SVLDRS.

Maa Danateshwari Maize Processing And MarketingCooperativeSociety Limited vs . Central Board Of Direct Taxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 265

The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the Income Tax department’s order demanding 20 % deposit amount to stay the demand of tax under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was viewed that the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand has been made a condition precedent for hearing the application for stay which is not contemplated either under the Act of 1961 or the CBDT guidelines dated 29-22016 modified by the office memorandum dated 31-7-2017.

The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the competent authority to consider it afresh in light of the guidelines as stated above and pass a reasoned order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

M/s Paradise Bar And Restaurant vs The State OfAndhraPradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 266

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that subsequent sale of liquor to customers not exigible to Value Added Tax ( VAT ) and set aside the assessment order dated 06.01.2022 and rectification order dated 25.02.2022 and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment orders by excluding the turnover of Rs.4.54 crores arising out of sale of liquor from the turnover on which tax is levied.

The court allowed the writ petition partly allowed by setting aside the assessment order dated 06.01.2022 and rectification order dated 25.02.2022 and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment orders by excluding the turnover of Rs.4.54 crores arising out of sale of liquor from the turnover on which tax is levied.

Aadhaar-PAN Linkage for Demat Accounts is a Valid Requirement, Does Not Violate Right to Privacy: Orissa HC [Read Order]

Tathagata Satapathy vs HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 267

The Orissa High Court has held that Aadhaar-PAN linkage for Demat accounts is a valid statutory and regulatory requirement and does not violate the right to privacy. The ruling came on a writ petition filed by Tathagata Satapathy, a former Member of Parliament, challenging the suspension of his Demat account by HDFC Bank for non-linking of Aadhaar. The petitioner argued that Aadhaar was not mandatory when the account was opened and relied on the Puttaswamy judgment to contend that Aadhaar cannot be forced for banking transactions.

Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed that Demat accounts are governed by SEBI’s regulatory framework and are distinct from ordinary bank accounts. The Court held that Aadhaar-PAN linkage, mandated under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act and SEBI KYC norms, serves a legitimate state interest in preventing tax evasion and financial fraud, and satisfies the test of proportionality. While noting that the petitioner’s Demat account had already been reactivated, the Court dismissed the petition after clarifying the legal position for future cases.

M/S. RAMANATTU MOTOR CORP vs STATE OF KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 268

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, distinguished between the terms ‘Non-Service of Notice’ and ‘Lack of Knowledge of Service of Notice’ under Goods and Service Tax (GST).

It cannot be assumed that taxpayers have been effectively informed that the first notice regarding determination under section 73 or 74 of the GST Act will be uploaded only in the tab meant for “Additional Notices and Orders” if there are no specific notes or instructions provided on the same page meant for “Notices and Orders” or “Additional Notices and Orders.” The court observed that the petitioner was not given enough time to challenge the issue, nor was there any appropriate notice served.

Mahendra Pratap Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 269

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahendra Pratap Srivastava, popularly known as “Zoom Baba,” seeking to quash an FIR registered against him in connection with the Ruby Coin cryptocurrency fraud citing he was actively involved in inducing investors through online meetings.

The court held that there was no legal basis to quash the FIR, as it disclosed a cognizable offense that warranted further investigation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

JOINT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE & ENFORCEMENT) vsM/S.LAKSHMI MOBILE ACCESSORIES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 270

The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when a common period of adjudication exists.

While dismissing the appeal, the bench opined that a consolidated notice would also result in a consolidated adjudication order covering several financial/assessment years and in the event of it being adverse to the assessee, the fee/predeposit required to be paid by an assessee for preferring a statutory appeal would also be higher.

SONANSH CREATIONS PVT LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX AND ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 271

The Delhi High Court has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ruling that a notice issued in the name of a non-existent entity due to merger is legally invalid. The court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to consider that the entity had ceased to exist post-amalgamation, making the reassessment proceedings void.

In its final ruling, the Delhi High Court Acting Chief Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma quashed the reassessment notice and set aside the proceedings, holding that the initial notice was issued to a non-existent entity, making the entire process legally invalid.

Gratuity Dues of Workers not Part of 'Liquidation Estate' of Corporate Debtor: Calcutta HC [Read Order]

M/s. Stesalit Limited vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 272

The Calcutta High Court has held that gratuity dues do not form part of a corporate debtor’s liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and are instead statutorily protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court ruled that gratuity must be paid in full to employees and cannot be subjected to the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC. It observed that Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the IBC expressly excludes gratuity, provident fund and pension fund dues from the liquidation estate, and that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has an overriding effect to safeguard employees’ statutory entitlements.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that gratuity is an earned right of employees and not an asset of the corporate debtor, and that workers’ welfare funds cannot be diluted through insolvency proceedings. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority and clarified that employees are entitled to full gratuity dues irrespective of resolution or liquidation under the IBC, reaffirming that such statutory benefits remain insulated from creditor claims.

M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 273

In a ruling in favour of Castrol India Ltd, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that the department retaining balance amount after reduction of tax demand under Value Added Tax Act ( VAT ) is violative of the constitution.

The bench ordered the department to return the assessee’s submitted funds after deducting them from the tax that was ultimately assessed after the assessing authority remanded the case. The bench granted the petition in light of the aforementioned.

Kamalakanta Singh vs State of Odisha CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 274

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of a GST Officer, who was accused of misappropriating Rs. 71.03 lakh in public funds while serving in the Jatni Circle, Odisha.

After examining the case details, Justice V. Narasingh observed that the allegations were grave and warranted further investigation. Considering the nature of the economic offense and the petitioner’s alleged involvement, the court held that anticipatory bail was not justified and dismissed the pre-arrest bail application.

EKK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 275

In a recent case related to denial of cross examination request in Income tax act proceedings, the Kerala High Court rejected the writ petition which was too premature a stage for considering its request.

Since the view that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that it is too premature a stage for considering its request, petitioner’s liberty to raise these contentions subsequently, in case any adverse orders are issued against him, shall not stand foreclosed.

AJAS N SHAMSU vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 276

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court directed the Income tax commissioner to dispose of the appeal against the Income Tax assessment order without undue delay in an expeditious manner.

A single Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the second respondent shall initiate appropriate steps to dispose of appeals without undue delay in an expeditious manner. Petitioner shall also cooperate in the disposal of the said appeal. It is, however, clarified that, if in case the petitioner fails to deposit 20% as stipulated by the Court in the order dated 30.01.2025, the competent authority will be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

M/S KRISHNA THEERAM AYUR HOLY BEACH RESORTS PV. LTDvsSTATE TAX OFFICER-II CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 277

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Kerala Tax Luxuries Act, 1976 on availability of statutory remedy. Though the assessing officer was given the liberty to restore the earlier assessment order, it was an option given to the assessing authority. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas court viewed that the application and the e-challan paid by the petitioner are all unilateral actions, which cannot bind the assessing authority or the Department from issuing order of assessment. Therefore, the contentions based on the Amnesty Scheme allegedly availed by the petitioner are not of any assistance to the petitioner. Since the matter requires to be appreciated based on the documents available and since the petitioner has the remedy of appeal, the court viewed that this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the writ petition reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

MUTHOOT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE INCOME TAXOFFICER (TDS) AYAKAR BHAVAN CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 278

In a recent case in favour of Muthoot Health Care, the Kerala High Court stayed the recovery proceedings under Income Tax Act, 1961 on Tax Deduct Service(TDS) demand over consultant doctors. The question is on whether consultant doctors are employees of the hospital/company and TDS has to be deducted under Section 192.

A single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that “The petitioner was heard pursuant to series of notice, it is only just and proper to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings pursuant to pending final disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on appeals as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. There will be a stay of further proceedings pursuant to appeals are disposed of. “

Late Shri Rafiq Ahmed Querashi vs Central Board OfDirectTaxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 279

The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled referred to the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) to hold that reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be issued beyond the permissible statutory limitation period.

A Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shubha Mehta laid reference to the precedential nature of the Supreme Court decision in Rajeev Bansal to hold that the reassessment for A.Y. 2015-16 proposed in the present case could not be sustained due to time-limitation and proceeded to allow the writ petition holding that the impugned notices are liable to be quashed.

M/S. JANAYUGAM PUBLICATIONS LTD vs THE ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 280

In a recent case, the High Court of Kerala directed the Income Tax department to dispose of an Income Tax appeal filed 8 years ago.It was found that, though an intimation was received that the appeal has been transferred to the third respondent, thereafter no communication has been received.

All-in-One Manual with Updated GST Laws & Provisions, Click here

In view of the above, respondents are directed to appeal against the assessment order for the year 2011-2012, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from today; provided the petitioner uploads the required documents within 30 days from today. Needless to mention that the appeal shall be disposed of, after granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

STS-KEC(JV) vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 281

In a major ruling for railway project contractors, the Madras High Court rejected the tax department’s request for an 18% GST rate while retaining the 12 percent concessional rate of goods and services tax (GST) for contract services rendered to Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd (RVNL).

The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that “the contract for doubling of track between Vanchi Maniyachchi to Nagercoil, construction of roadbed, minor bridges, platforms, buildings, water and effluent treatment facilities, wagon / coaching maintenance infrastructure, supply of ballast, installation of tracks and other electrical, signalling and telecommunication infrastructure in Madurai and Thiruvananthapuram Divisions of Southern Railway, between the petitioner and RVNL would be covered by Notification 11 of 2017 CGST (RATE) dated 28.06.2017 as amended vide Notification No. 20/2017 dated 22.08.2017, Notification No.8 of 2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No. 94 dated 22.8.2017 CT & RE and liable to tax at 12%.”

Prateek Bulls And Bears Private Limited vsDeputyCommissioner Of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 282

In a recent case related to the validity of the bank account mentioned in the Income Tax Return (ITR) filed, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the proceedings initiated under 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a procedural violation.

A division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that the objections were not decided in accordance with Section 148A and the guidelines issued for procedure to be followed in proceedings under Section 148A of the Act. E The department miserably failed to put an iota of evidence to even prima-facie show that the bank account mentioned in the notice belonged to the petitioner and the name of the bank of which account number belongs is not disclosed. While allowing the appeal, the court quashed the impugned order.

M/s. Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. andothers. vs The State of Telangana and others. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 283

The Telangana High Court ruled that orders under the GST and Show Cause Notices (SCN) that are not signed by the appropriate officer cannot withstand judicial review.

The court determined that the notification or order is vulnerable since the Rule and the prescribed forms require the Proper Officer’s signature. If the court takes a different stance regarding DRC-07 not being signed without taking into account the aforementioned norm and the necessary form, it must be held incuriam. The notices and orders were all revoked by the court.

M/S RIDGEVIEW CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD vsPrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 284

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were invalid as no incriminating material and that even before the 2015 amendment, the satisfaction of both the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person and the AO of the non-searched person was required to justify reassessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.

The court referenced precedents including CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2018) and RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015) holding that concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely because a document was found during a search unless it directly establishes undisclosed income for the specified years. The provisional balance sheet did not link the petitioner to any undisclosed income for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 so, the court upheld the ITAT’s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department.

Tvl. Chennais Pet vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 285

In a recent ruling, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court held that a minor procedural delay in filing a GST appeal should not be a ground for dismissal, particularly when the petitioner has made substantial payments toward the disputed tax liability.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the rejection order dated 03.01.2025 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, directing the appellate authority to decide the case on its merits within two months. The Writ Petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

PULIKKAL MEDICAL FOUNDATION vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 286

In a ruling on the appeal filed by the Medical trust against Income Tax order issued under section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Kerala High Court stayed the recovery proceedings initiated by the department till the disposal of the appeals by the tribunal.

The recovery proceedings are kept in abeyance for a short period till the appeal is disposed of. In fact, the appeals have become ripe for hearing, ought to be disposed of in a time bound manner. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stayed the orders till the appeals filed are disposed of.

KUTTUKARAN ANTONY ANTO vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 287

The Kerala High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to allow claims of benefit under section 16(5) of GST Act, 2017. By virtue of an amendment effected, sub-clause (5) to Section 16 of the Act, the principal can take Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods if capital goods are directly sent to a job worker for job work.

Further directed that the order shall pass as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from today. The revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the first respondent as directed above. If the petitioner is given the benefit of amended provisions of Section 16(5) of the Act, necessarily consequences will follow.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER vs M/S NAM ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 288

The Karnataka High Court directed the GST department to refund the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) as it was viewed that the same cannot be denied on the ground of non-issuance of credit note by other party to contract.

While rejecting the petition, the division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja directed the appellant to refund the GST amount to the Respondent-Assessee within a period of eight weeks, failing which they run the risk of contempt proceedings and further they are liable to pay the interest at the statutory admissible rate, which may be recovered on such payment, from the erring officials.

SML FINANCE LIMITED BETHANY COMPLEX vs THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 289

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court stayed the recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 till the disposal of the pending appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The stay was made as the appeal filed against the order of assessment for the year 2012-13 is under consideration before the tribunal and already hearing of the appeal has been concluded with orders awaited

Since the appeal filed against the order of assessment for the year 2012-13 is under consideration before the 3rd respondent and already hearing of the appeal has been concluded with orders awaited, the recovery proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance till the above referred appeal is disposed of.

Sri Dhanalakshmi Steels vs The Assistant Commissioner (st) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 290

The Madras High Court, in its judgment, set aside the Goods and Service Tax (GST) order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) by invoking section 17(5) of the GST Act, 2017, without indicating reason.

A single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the order allowed the respondent authority to issue a notice indicating the Clause under Section 17(5) of the act which gets attracted to enable the petitioner to respond and thereafter proceed in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

M/s R. T. Pharma vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 291

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that taxpayers who filed their ( Goods and Services Tax Returns ) GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C returns before the amnesty notification date can still avail of the late fee waiver benefit.

The matter was remanded to the third respondent, directing them to pass a fresh order on merit while extending the benefit of the notification in accordance with the law. The court also directed that the revised order be issued expeditiously, preferably within three months from the receipt of the judgment.

Ashok Sharma vs The State of West Bengal & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 292

The Calcutta High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department to release vehicles and held that the department cannot seize goods under section 129 of GST Act, 2017 when quantity or weight of goods is found correct on physical verification.

In light of observation, the bench directed the department to release the vehicle along with the goods within four days from the order.

Sugandha Sawhney vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 293

In a recent ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that charging tolls on bad roads is unfair and ordered an 80% reduction in toll fees at 2 key toll plazas.

The court directed that toll charges at Lakhanpur and Ban Toll Plazas should be reduced to just 20% of the original rate until the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway is fully completed. It also ordered that all toll plazas must follow the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008, especially regarding the required 60 km distance between toll plazas.

ASHOK HARRY POTHEN vs THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 294

The Kerala High Court ruled that if a bank was not a party to the resolution plan authorized under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it may still pursue recovery of unpaid debts under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the resolution plan had no bearing whatsoever on the respondent bank’s ability to pursue the property that the petitioner had mortgaged, particularly since the respondent bank was not even involved in the NCLT proceedings or the resolution plan.

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD vs INCOME TAXOFFICER& ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 295

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose arbitrary time limits to deny taxpayers their right to claim refunds under the Income Tax Act and ruled CBDT Circular No. 07/2007 which set a two-year deadline for refund applications is ultra vires.

The court quashed the rejection order and directed the Income Tax Department to process the refund. The court clarified that CBDT’s attempt to restrict taxpayers’ refund rights through an arbitrary limitation period was unlawful and that taxpayers cannot be denied legitimate refunds based on procedural barriers that lack legal authority. The writ petition was allowed.

MONISH GAJAPATI RAJU PUSAPATI vs ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOMETAXDEPARTMENT & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 296

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court stated that clerical mistakes in reassessment notices can be corrected, but ignoring clear errors in assessment orders is not acceptable.

The court quashed the order, which rejected the petitioner’s objections. The reassessment notice was not completely canceled, but the tax department was ordered to correct the mistake and provide the petitioner with the correct financial details within a week. The petitioner was given a fresh opportunity to respond before reassessment could proceed. The writ petition was partly allowed.

M/S LEGACY FOODS PVT. LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 297

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that enterprises claiming deductions under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act are not required to obtain government approval if they operate in notified special zones.

The court set aside an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)and allowed the appeal. The tribunal directed that the appellant’s deduction claim under Section 80IC be restored.

SMT. SHIVANI MADAN vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 298

The court found that the AO view that the property would be liable to be viewed as being jointly owned in equal share by the appellant and her spouse and thus taxed in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.

While allowing the appeal, the court viewed that the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property. The court set aside the order of the Tribunal.

M/s.Urmilla Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs State Tax Officer-I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 299

The Madras High Court, in a recent decision, noted that there was a failure on the part of the department to consider relevant GST circular and directed a fresh review of the matter imposing a 200% penalty on the non-generation of e-invoice.

The bench further observed that “it is made clear that if the respondent has come to the conclusion that the benefit available by virtue of the said circular is not applicable for the petitioner, the respondent shall release the vehicle upon the deposit of sum of Rs.10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) by the petitioner, and if the detained vehicle is kept idle, it would get damaged and its value also get deteriorated till final orders being passed, if the said order is challenged, attains finality.”

M/s.STAR YARN vs The State Tax Officer (INT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 300

The Madras High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a delayed appeal due to the demise of counsel on record and granted 2 weeks for filing the appeal.

Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy of the Madras High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the court’s order. The court also directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, without insisting on the limitation aspect. The Appellate Authority was instructed to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition was disposed of, and no order as to costs was issued.