M/S MANJALLY JEWELLERS vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGNTRADE & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 301

The Delhi High Court allowed the gold importers to file a review application against the DGFT’s order reducing the rate of Bullion Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) allocation .

It was further held that “In the event that the respondents are inclined to accept the petitioners’ requests, the DGFT may introduce additional conditions to ensure that the petitioners comply with the TRQ allocation and carry out the imports, in accordance with law. “

M/s.Tamilnadu Road Infrastructure Development Corporationvs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 302

The Madras High Court held that Tamil Nadu Road Infrastructure Development Corporation (TNDRC) was not liable to pay Goods and Service Tax (GST) asit was was registered under the category “Tax Deductor.”. The bench set aside the GST demand order and directed the petitioner to file objections within 2 months.

Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy of the Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, which was passed by the respondent, and directed the petitioner to file required documents within a period of 2 months from the copy of the order. The respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity of hearing and pass an order in accordance with the law.

M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 303

In the Noida Sports City scam, the Allahabad High Court issued guidelines regarding the rights of other consortium members in the event that one of them becomes insolvent.The court laid down the guidelines as the same is not provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a complaint against all the deceitful NOIDA officials, as well as the builders and allottees involved in the approval, development, and allocation of the Sports City Project, as well as any other individuals who might be connected to the fraud, while dismissing the writ petition.

Tvl.Silver Cloud Estates Private Limited vs The StateTaxOfficer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 304

The Madras High Court has recently ruled that a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) order is unenforceable if the taxpayer is not properly served with notices. The court emphasized that merely uploading notices on the GST portal without personal delivery or registered post does not constitute valid service.

Failure to comply with this condition will result in the reinstatement of the original order. Additionally, the court directed that any bank account attachments or recovery actions be lifted once the partial payment is made.

Y.Kayalvizhi vs The Secretary, Commercial TaxesandRegistration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort,Secretariat,Chennai CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 305

The Madras High Court has set aside disciplinary action against the Deputy Commissioner of GST, noting that there was no evidence of misconduct or corruptive motive on the part of the petitioner.

Bench further observed that “the order of the Original Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority, will clearly establish the fact that both of them have not considered the defense of the writ petitioner that she had called for the master files and she had perused the cancelled E way bills and after being satisfied with the availability of cancelled E way bills, she had passed the said order. Both the authorities have not recorded any finding that the petitioner should pass orders only based upon the appeal files presented by the dealer and should not look into the master file.”

PATANJALI FOODS LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 306

The Gujarat High Court recently ruled in favor of Patanjali Foods Ltd. (Patanjali), upholding the refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) amounting to ₹1,70,07,091 which was initially granted but later sought to be recovered by the revenue.

Additionally, the Court quashed the impugned Order-in-Original holding that once the refund sanction order dated January 12, 2024 attains finality, no subsequent show cause notice revoking the benefits of a quasi-judicial order could be instated.

M/S HIGH TECH ECOGREEN CONTRACTORS LLP vs THEJOINTDIRECTOR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 307

The Gauhati High Court affirmed constitutional validity of Regulation 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. For a registered person to claim an input tax credit ( ITC ), the law lays forth the circumstances and documentation required.

The eligibility requirements and documentation needed to receive an input tax credit are obviously different from the process of filing a return to receive the benefit. Section 164 makes it clear that the Central Government may establish regulations for any or all of the subjects covered by the CGST Act.

Tvl.K.P.Trading Corporation vs The AssistantCommissioner(ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 308

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court set aside a cryptic tax assessment order and directed a reassessment with a fair hearing, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice in tax proceedings.

Reinforcing the principles of natural justice, the Court not only set aside the flawed order but also directed the Commissioner of State Tax to issue a new circular warning tax officials against issuing vague assessments. It further stated that in future cases where assessment orders fail to determine tax liability or lack proper reasoning, disciplinary action should be taken against the responsible officer.

TILAK RAJ JAIN AND ANR VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 309

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court ruled that repeated placing and removing from the call book is not a valid justification for non-adjudication of the impugned SCN for about 15 years.

Relying upon the decision of Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Additional Director General New Delhi & Ors., Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma quashed the impugned SCN and set aside the order.

M/S Jaya Traders vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 310

The Allahabad High Court in its recent judgment, has held that the seizure under Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017can be made on the ground of under-valuation.

Judge Piyush Agrawal’s single bench has noted that if undervaluation is intentional and done to avoid paying taxes or to circumvent the GST Act’s provisions, the seizure may still be conducted on that basis. The dealer purposefully devalued the items in order to take advantage of Rule 138, which stipulates that an e-way bill must be included with the goods and cannot be spared, the court said.

CRESCENT MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD vs THE FASTTRACKREVISIONAL AUTHORITY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 311

The Calcutta High Court has held that the rejection of the renewal of the eligibility certificate will render the petitioner/dealer ineligibility for output tax for discharging the liability the dealer will have to pay the taxes.

Further held that the output liability for the rejected period, namely, from 4.3.2015 to 31.3.2015 was to be paid by the writ petitioner within 30 days of such rejection in terms of Rule 180 of the said Rules and having not done so, the authorities were justified in demanding the same by passing the impugned order.

Palpandi Shanthi Priya vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 312

The High Court of Madras in a recent ruling, directed the petitioner to seek an appellate remedy over the non-consideration of evidence in a reassessment proceeding.

A single member bench of Vivek Kumar Singh(Justice) noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Appellate Commissioner and allowed a challenge to the impugned order within 30 days of receiving a copy. It directed the Appellate Commissioner to consider and decide the appeal on merits within three months if filed under Section 246A(1)(d) of the Act.

Madhubala Narayanasamy vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 313

The High Court of Madras , in a recent ruling, set aside an assessment order for violating natural justice, citing improper notice to a non-resident taxpayer. In the interest of justice, the court set aside the impugned order for violating natural justice, subject to a payment of ₹7,500 to the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai.

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTDvs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ACC (IMPORT) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 314

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court struck down the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on aircraft parts re-imported after being sent abroad for repairs, providing significant relief to airlines. The court ruled that imposing IGST on the repair cost, insurance, and freight of such re-imported parts was unjustified and amounted to double taxation.

The Court clarified that the original notification was unambiguous in restricting the levy to Basic Customs Duty (BCD), and the 2021 amendment sought to drastically alter this position. The court held that levying an additional duty on a transaction already taxed as a supply of service was unconstitutional and could not be sustained.

SFDC IRELAND LIMITED vsCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &ANOTHER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 315

The Delhi High Court recently set aside an order by the Revenue Department imposing a Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of 2% on ₹633.34 Crore in revenue earned by SFDC Ireland Limited (Salesforce) from conducting product reselling in India through its Indian affiliate.

Affirming that the observations in the present order were confined to the issue of withholding tax and would not preclude the AO from conducting an independent assessment as per law, uninfluenced by the present Order.

BUDS have No Precedence over proceedings under SARFAESI Act or IBC: Kerala HC rules in case of HDB Financial Services [Read Order]

HDB FINANCIAL SERVICESLIMITED vs THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 316

The Kerala High Court has held that attachment proceedings under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) do not override actions taken under the SARFAESI Act or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While allowing a writ petition filed by HDB Financial Services Limited, the Court observed that the saving clause in the BUDS Act expressly protects proceedings under SARFAESI and the IBC from being eclipsed by attachments made under the BUDS Act.

Justice Gopinath P. noted that the phrase “save as otherwise provided in the SARFAESI Act or the IBC” clearly indicates legislative intent to give precedence to secured creditor actions under those statutes. Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to register the sale certificate issued pursuant to SARFAESI proceedings, despite the attachment under the BUDS Act, while requiring the petitioner to deposit any excess sale proceeds with the competent authority under the BUDS Act within four weeks.

Stressed AssetsStabilization Fund vs The State ofMaharashtra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 317

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) qualifies as a “deemed dealer” under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act, 2002, making it liable to pay VAT on the sale of movable assets.

The court ruled that SASF falls within the Explanation to Section 2(8) of the MVAT Act, which includes entities owned or constituted by the Central Government as deemed dealers, irrespective of whether they engage in business in the conventional sense. Dismissing SASF’s appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld the Sales Tax Tribunal’s decision. The court ruled that SASF is liable for VAT on all sales of movable property conducted in Maharashtra.

Stressed AssetsStabilization Fund vs The State ofMaharashtra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 317

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court denied the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund ( SASF ) the benefit of prospective tax relief, holding it retrospectively liable for VAT on past sales.

The court upheld the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal’s (MSTT) decision, which rejected the appellant’s request for prospective effect under Section 56(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act, 2002. The Bombay High Court upheld the Sales Tax Tribunal’s decision and ruled that the appellant must pay VAT retrospectively on all past transactions.

M/s.Ragem Motors vs TheState Tax Officer-IV (Inspection) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 318

The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition challenging the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand on non-taxable receipts, citing the availability of a statutory remedy.

Section 107 of the GST Act allows an appeal against an order within three months, with a one-month extension if justified. A 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax is required. The department can appeal within six months. The Appellate Authority may confirm, modify, or annul the order, and a further appeal can be made to the GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act.

MOHAMED SHAMIUDDEEN vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 319

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ordered the release of goods detained by customs authorities. The court cited a failure to issue a proper show cause notice as required under Section 124 of theCustoms Act, 1962. The court also questioned customs’ reliance on a standard pre-signed waiver form.

The Division bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh and jJustice Dharmesh Sharma asserted the customs department’s failure to issue a valid show cause notice, ruled the detention illegal and directed the immediate release of the petitioner’s goods within two weeks. However, the court clarified that storage charges, if applicable, must be borne by the petitioner.

QUARTZ COMMECIAL PVTLTD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 320

The High Court of Delhi upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order upholding income tax addition and treating increase in share capital as sham transaction. It was found that the assessee has not carried on any business activities during the year and has received share application money with a huge premium which has been invested again on the same date as share application money in various companies.

Since, the Assessee’s appeal against the impugned order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the ITAT was dismissed, the bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela viewed that the question of any further proceedings before the AO did not arise. The issue sought to be raised in this appeal stood concluded with the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal Quartz Commercial Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer by the order dated 9.02.2018 passed by the court.

UNION OF INDIA THROUGHSECRETARY MINISTRY vs M/S APCOTEXINDUSTRIES LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 321

In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court disposed of multiple Writ Petitions pertaining to the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), ruling that the case has become infructuous following the domestic industry’s withdrawal of its demand for duty imposition.

The Bench observed that the domestic industry no longer pressed for the imposition of ADD for which they had informed the Government in writing. In such an event, the question of law raised by the Union of India i.e., as to whether CESTAT has jurisdiction to set aside an Office Memorandum or not would become moot, and the writ petitions herein – infructuous.

M/s.Golden Enterprisesvs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 322

In a rather bizarre event, the Madras High Court safeguarded the rights and restored the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Registration of a business owner whose registration was cancelled by the authorities upon notice that the business had been closed for a period of almost 2 weeks during the Diwali holidays.

In closing, the Bench directed that the Petitioner may not be eligible to utilize any Input Tax Credit (ITC) earned without being scrutinized and approved by the department. It further ruled that failure to comply with the order’s conditions would result in automatic cessation of the relief granted.

GE GRID (SWITZERLAND)GMBH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 323

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated against GE Grid (Switzerland) GmbH, a subsidiary of General Electric (GE), ruling that the Income Tax Department failed to provide any fresh material evidence to justify reopening assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18.

The Bench went on to quash the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act observing that the Revenue failed to bring any fresh material to justify reopening the assessment.

M/s. Himesh Foods PvtLtd vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 324

The Bombay High Court is set to decide whether donuts should be taxed at 5% or 18% under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, a case that could have significant financial implications for bakeries and quick-service restaurant (QSR) chains across India.

The next hearing set for March 24, 2025, all eyes are on the Bombay High Court as it deliberates on the tax fate of India’s favorite sweet treat the donut.

The PrincipalCommissioner of Income-tax – 25 C-10 vsShree Ganesh Developers 301 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 325

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court ordered the full disallowance of bogus purchases under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, citing the absence of bank statements to verify transactions.

The court reversed the ITAT’s order and directed full disallowance. The court capped the total additions at Rs. 1,00,10,773, ensuring no excess tax liability beyond the unverified purchases. For other suppliers, where purchases were substantiated with bank statements, the court upheld the ITAT’s decision.

M/s. L. T. StockBrokers Pvt. Ltd. vs The ChiefCommissioner Of Income Tax - 2 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 326

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose a limitation period for filing compounding applications through its guidelines when the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not prescribe any such restriction.

The court ruled that the Chief Commissioner had failed to exercise discretion and had instead treated the guidelines as an absolute bar. The court set aside the order dated 17.01.2024 and directed the Chief Commissioner to reconsider the compounding application, taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition was allowed.

M/S DD INTERIORS vsCOMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 327

The Delhi High Court ruled that an appeal cannot be denied on the grounds of defects just because a pre-deposit required by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for filing an appeal is made in the incorrect account, even though the integrated portal may not have been fully operational at the time.

While allowing the appeal, the order passed by CESTAT is set aside. The petition of the Petitioner is restored to its original number before CESTAT and shall now be heard on merits without any further pre-deposit.

Sree VenkateswaraMedical vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 328

Madras High Court has revived a GST registration that was canceled for failing to file statutory returns for six consecutive months under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The Court allowed the restoration of the registration subject to conditions.

Based on these precedents, the Court decided to extend the benefit of the Suguna Cutpiece Center judgment to the petitioner, allowing them to restore their registration subject to these conditions.

RAHUL VATTAMPARAMBILREMESH vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 329

The customs department has been ordered by the Delhi High Court to release the gold chains of non-resident Indians (NRIs) who traveled from the United Arab Emirates to attend a wedding.

The court ordered that the petitioner’s gold item be released in four weeks. The same will be collected by the petitioner or his designated signatory. After confirming the petitioner’s credentials, the relevant person or agency will release the information.

DRI’s Continued Retention of Bail Applicant’s Passport is Indirect Impounding: Bombay HC Directs Return Subject to Intimation of Intl. Travel

Manish Gulabchand Birawat vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 330

The Bombay High Court has directed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to return the passport of a bail applicant, holding that continued retention of a passport amounts to indirect impounding, which is impermissible in law. The ruling came in a criminal application filed by Manish Gulabchand Birawat, who sought modification of a bail condition imposed in 2021 that restrained him from leaving India without prior court permission and allowed the DRI to retain his passport.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the power to impound a passport vests only with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and that prolonged retention by investigative agencies without following statutory procedure is unlawful. Holding that repeated deposit and retrieval of the passport would be onerous, the Court directed the DRI to return the passport within one week, while requiring the applicant to intimate travel details, purpose and return schedule to the DRI whenever he proposes to travel abroad.

FASTTRACK TIEUP PVT.LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 331

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.

While granting the petition, the bench concluded that although respondent no. 2 had started the attachment process by issuing the prohibitory order, respondent no. 2 had not taken any further steps to retrieve the unpaid sum. Retaining the properties indefinitely without taking further action to address the issue is prohibited.

Md. Firoz vs AssistantCommissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 332

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the cancellation of a taxpayer’s GST registration after the assessee failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and was found to have no business presence at the registered address.

The court ruled that no interference was warranted as the petitioner had failed to establish his case and had not availed the opportunities given to him during the proceedings. The cancellation of GST registration was upheld.

M/S KASHISH OPTICS LTDvs THE COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHIWEST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 333

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 are pari materia, requiring them to be interpreted in a similar manner.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court directed the release of the seized goods upon the petitioner making a deposit as per the valuation while also clarifying that the existence of a provisional release mechanism under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017 does not negate the requirement under Section 67(7) to show sufficient cause before extending the seizure period.

M/S KASHISH OPTICS LTDvs THE COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHIWEST & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 333

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the GST Department’s failure to issue a notice before extending the seizure period beyond six months invalidates the continued retention of goods, while ordering the immediate release of spectacles and frames seized from the Petitioner.

In light of all the observations made, the Delhi High Court ordered the immediate release of the seized spectacles and frames upon the petitioner making a deposit as per the valuation.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 334

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that cross-objections are not maintainable under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, clarifying that the provision does not allow respondents in tax appeals to file objections against findings that were adverse to them.

The court explained that each statute defines its own appeal rights, and Section 260A does not authorize cross-objections in any form. The court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the assessee-respondent.

M/S SAHIL TOTALINFRATECH PVT. LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 335

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court directed the Income Tax Department to pay 6% interest per annum for a period of 20 months on the delayed refund of ₹2,20,41,042 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2020.

Holding that the fault may not be attributed to either party, the Court ordered the Department to pay interest at 6% per annum for a period of 20 months (from June 1, 2022, to January 31, 2024), amounting to ₹22,04,104. The Court directed that this amount be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-5 vs Kanak Impex (India)Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 336

The Bombay High Court has upheld the addition of bogus purchase under Section 69 C of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the respondent-assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.

It was the respondent-assessee’s responsibility to enter the re-assessment proceedings, fulfill the initial burden of demonstrating the purchases, and get any relevant facts. The respondent-assessee’s arguments on this matter are to be disregarded since they have not participated in the re-assessment proceedings.

MADAN MOHAN vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 337

The Delhi High Court upheld the order initiating disciplinary proceedings against Madan Mohan, a Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration). The bench determined that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 was entirely lawful because it only included an internal work allocation exercise by the MOF under his Ministry.

The bench determined that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 was entirely lawful because it only included an internal work allocation exercise by the MOF under his Ministry.

MS GRAINOTCH INDUSTRIESLTD vs THE UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 338

The Bombay High Court has stayed Rs. 71.23 Crore Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand holding that issuing 4 years consolidated notice.

The court ruled that the order will be temporarily stayed until a later date since it was initially satisfied with the reasons made by the petitioner’s attorney.

PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vsBEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE(INDIA) PVT.LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 339

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the existence of an international transaction must be established before undertaking a transfer pricing benchmarking analysis.

The court clarified that AMP expenses do not automatically fall within the scope of transfer pricing regulations unless there is clear evidence of an arrangement between the assessee and the foreign AE. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ITAT’s decision, ruling in favor of the appellant.

M/S SAHIL TOTALINFRATECH PVT. LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 340

The Gujarat High Court has held that the interest is payable on refund under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV Scheme) even in absence of the provision.

Without considering whether it is a fault on part of the petitioner to validate the bank account or whether any negligence on part of the respondents for not releasing the amount of refund, the court directed the respondents to pay the amount of interest at the rate of 6% per annum as per the calculation provided to us amounting to Rs.22,04,104/- for twenty months from 01/06/2022 to 31/01/2024 considering the entire month on amount of Rs.2,20,41,042/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

M/s. Arrow AdvertisingIndia Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioners and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 341

Due to the Director Identification Number (DIN) not being included, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has revoked the GST assessment ruling.

The court disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the show-cause notice, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

NTT Data BusinessSolutions Pvt Ltd vsUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 342

Citing CBIC Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated December 28, 2023, which extended the deadline for issuing show cause notices (SCNs) and orders, the Bombay High Court granted an interim stay on the garnishee notice.

The division bench, which is made up of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the Petitioner has not only made out a case for admission but also for grant of interim relief.The court held that a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner.

Mr.PalaniyandSharavanan vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 343

The Madras High Court has ruled that the online filing date should be considered the official submission date for GST appeals.

The Single Bench, composed of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, examined Rule 108(2) of the GST Rules and held that once a provisional acknowledgment is issued, the appeal filing date should relate to that acknowledgment. Since the petitioner had uploaded the appeal on 23.08.2024, and it was acknowledged on the same date, the Court ruled that this must be considered the valid filing date. As a result, the appeal was within the permissible limitation period under Section 107(7) of the GST Act.

Frontline Wind EnergyPrivate Limited vs The AssistantCommissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 344

The Madras High Court observed that the GST demand on a going concern transfer was arbitrary and unsustainable as it contradicted the tax department’s earlier notice.

The court found the demand to be arbitrary and unsustainable. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order based on the merits and under the law.

THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs NOKIA NETWORK OY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 345

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling has held that Nokia Network OY (now Nokia Corporation) does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, thereby exempting its offshore supply transactions from taxation under Indian law.

The High Court bench consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that Offshore supply transactions remain non-taxable if executed outside India. Held that A subsidiary does not automatically become a PE, even if it is wholly owned, that notional interest on delayed payments cannot be taxed unless actually received. The Court also asserted that Bundled software sales do not qualify as royalty payments.

M/s. Teju Granites vsThe Assistant Commissioner StateTaxes Markapur Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 346

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the recent ruling, set aside Form GST DRC-07 assessment order due to absence of Assessing Officer (AO)’s signature and Document Identification Number(DIN).

The two member bench comprising R Raghunandan Rao(Justice) and Dr. K.Manmadha Rao(Justice) set aside the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.06.2022, and allowed the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh assessment with notice and a signature on the order. The time between the impugned order and this decision was excluded for limitation purposes. No costs were awarded.

Tvl.Jainsons Castors& Industrial Products vs TheAssistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 347

The Madras High Court recently delivered a highly significant judgment clarifying that there can be no simultaneous applicability of late fees for belated filing of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) returns under section 47 and general penalties under section 125 under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( TNGST ) Act, 2017.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the general penalty of ₹50,000 inclusive of ₹25,000 CGST and ₹25,000 SGST while upholding the applicability of late fee imposed under Section 47.

M/s. SreenidhiInternational Pvt. Ltd vs The JointCommissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 348

The Telangana High Court allowed writ petition citing violation of natural justice principle. It was found that there was a breach of principles of natural justice and for not considering the objection of jurisdiction.

A division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Dr. Justice G.Radha Rani viewed that “If activity is ‘exempted’, the question of imposition of tax does not arise. Sadly, this relevant aspect/ objection has escaped notice of the authority, who has passed the impugned order. . The said objection certainly goes to the root of the matter and relates to the competence of authority in subjecting the petitioner to impugned proceedings. Thus, for twin reasons namely for breach of principles of natural justice and for not considering the objection of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy.”

THE PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs LAST HOUR MINISTRY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 349

The Kerala High Court declared the principal commissioner’s power to terminate an assessee’s registration without awaiting the assessing authority’s action. Judges A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S., who made up the Division Bench, noted that Section 12AA’s provisions give the Principal Commissioner the authority to decide whether the conditions listed in Sections 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act are necessary to order the cancellation of the registration that was given to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench held that the Principal Commissioner is not required by the legislative provisions to wait for the Assessing Authority’s conclusion before issuing an order terminating an assessee’s registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The bench overturned the Appellate Tribunal’s ruling and granted the appeal.

JSD TRADERS LLP vsADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 350

The Delhi High Court has been made clear that a decision to cancel a trader’s GST registration with retroactive effect will not be upheld unless the authority’s intentions and the reasons for the cancellation are reflected in the show cause notice.

As a result, the Department was given permission to continue against the Petitioner only after being fully informed of the facts supporting that opinion in accordance with Section 29(2)(e).