Ramesh Bapurao Potdarvs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 351

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to accept and exchange ₹20 lakh in demonetized currency notes held by a Kolhapur resident since their cash was seized by the Income Tax Department prior to the December 30, 2016 deadline for bank deposit of the now-demonetized ₹500 and ₹1000 currency notes.

The RBI was directed to verify the notes and release an equivalent amount in legal tender to petitioner no.1 on behalf of all petitioners. Additionally, petitioner no.1 was directed to indemnify the RBI against any future claims from the other petitioners, and this process was required to be completed within seven days of receiving the specified bank notes.

M/s. The CottonCorporation of India vs AssistantCommissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 352

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the time limit specified in AP GST Act 73(2) for the issuance of a show-cause notice about a purportedly inadequate tax payment, etc., is obligatory.

The High Court noted that if a time frame for a certain activity is expressed in terms of months, the cutoff date would be the corresponding date of that month. The Court determined that since the deadline for issuing an injunction was 28.02.2024, the three months that would pass after this date would be 28.11.2024. Given that the notice was sent on November 30, 2024, it would have passed the deadline set forth in Section 73(2) of the GST Act. The court quashed the SCN and allowed the petition.

Seller Must Download E-Way Bill When Goods are in Transit; Delayed Download will not Absolve SGST Liability: Allahabad HC

M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders vs Commercial Tax And Another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 353

The Allahabad High Court has held that generation and carriage of an e-way bill at the time goods are put in transit is mandatory, and that downloading an e-way bill after interception does not cure the violation or absolve the seller from liability under the SGST Act, 2017. The ruling came in a writ petition filed by M/s Gurunanak Arecanut Traders, which challenged a tax and penalty demand of ₹90.62 lakh imposed under Section 129 of the Act after goods were intercepted in transit without a valid e-way bill.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that following the 2018 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh GST Rules, there was no technical difficulty in generating e-way bills, and failure to carry one during transit indicates an intent to evade tax. Relying on earlier precedent, the Court held that allowing post-interception generation of e-way bills would defeat the purpose of the law and encourage tax evasion. Finding no procedural infirmity or illegality in the detention and penalty orders, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

M/S OM GEMS ANDJEWELLERY vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) AIR CARGO COMPLEX NSCBIAIRPORT & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 354

The High Court of Delhi directed the release of the Bank Guarantee with interest due to an unjustified delay in finalizing the provisional assessment of imported gold jewellery.

The Court noted a serious lapse in the reply affidavit from the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, as it failed to consider the December 14, 2023, judgment and warned against such errors. It further stated that if the Bank Guarantee with interest was not released, the responsible officer would be held personally accountable, and the assessee could file an application before the Court.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX vs WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 355

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if the assessee represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.

The court struck aside an ITAT ruling permitting the Respondent-assessee, a financial services business, to claim over ₹27 crore as bad debt of a borrower, which was a group company of the Assessee.

L & T PES JV vsAssistant Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 356

The Telangana High Court held that in the absence of the aforesaid material, information and documents to substantiate the claim of refund of excessive Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) collected under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, it would be difficult for the Bench in exercise of writ jurisdiction, to grant any relief to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant material and on such submission, the adjudicating authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for refund of TDS amount in the event of petitioner furnishing appropriate, cogent documents in proof of discharge of liability in the State of Maharashtra after duly affording opportunity to both the parties.

Max Estates Limited vsUnion of India and another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 357

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the GST demands issued against Max Ventures and Industries Limited after its merger with Max Estates Limited, ruling that tax demands made against a company that had ceased to exist due to merger are invalid.

The court allowed the government to pursue tax proceedings against the appropriate entity, Max Estates Limited, if permissible under the law.

NITESH YADAV vs STATENCT OF DELHI & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 358

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court highlighted a specific instance wherein a mismatch between the figures and words in a cheque does not automatically invalidate it, holding that such disputes must be resolved through a trial.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled that technical defects should not defeat the object of the NI Act, which is to uphold the credibility of negotiable instruments. It held that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was maintainable and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini District Court, to proceed with the trial.

CARGILL INDIA PRIVATELIMITED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 359

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central government’s authority to relax restrictions outlined in Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 and Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962 is extraordinary, discretionary, and not normally subject to judicial review.

As a result, the Court denied the petition, stating that even after accounting for the longer time frame for meeting the requirement, the Petitioner had failed to meet the specified condition, which was to achieve production equal to at least 50% of the installed capacity of the amalgamating company’s undertaking.

M/S ISMARTU INDIA PVT.LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 360

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter’s goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in ‘suppression of facts’ from the Department.

While allowing the appeal, the Court also cautioned the Department against mere incantation of the provisions of the Section without any substance to back it up and quashed the impugned SCN.

M/S ISMARTU INDIA PVT.LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 360

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued. Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices.

It was noted that notices under both provisions cannot be issued in cases where (i) the factual matrix is nearly identical, (ii) the reports are submitted by the same chartered engineer, and (iii) the conclusions are nearly identical. This is because Section 28(1) can only function in the absence of the conditions outlined in Section 28(4).

M/s.Ashoka Textiles vsThe Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 361

The Madras High Court directed the disposal of a pending appeal for Assessment Year(AY) 2019-20 within four months amid recovery proceedings.

A single member bench comprising Vivek Kumar Singh (Justice) instructed the third respondent to review the petitioner’s appeal dated May 22, 2024, on its merits and issue appropriate orders as per the law within four months of receiving a copy of the order, after granting the petitioner a fair opportunity. It also clarified that it had not given any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the decision to the third respondent. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of.

The Central Board ofDirect Taxes vs Shri Anbuchezhian CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 362

The High Court of Madras confirmed the deemed pendency of a settlement application under Clause [iv] of Section 245A of Income Tax Act, 1961, before March 31, 2021.

Further, it was acknowledged that the Division Bench’s decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court on July 9, 2024, in SLP [C] Diary No.21948/2024. The order of the Single Judge was subsequently complied with, albeit without prejudice to the assessee’s stand. The two member bench comprising S.S.Sundar (Justice) and C.Saravanan (Justice) dismissed the writ appeal.

The AssistantCommissioner of Customs vs M/s.Modern IndiaProducts CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 363

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, has held that the Customs Department cannot deny refund of Integrated Goods andServices Tax (IGST) to exporters merely on the grounds that they had availed a higher rate of duty drawback.

Dismissing the appeal by the Customs, the Madras High Court upheld the ruling of the preceding single-bench in favour of M/s.Modern India Products.

SEEMA PADALIA ANDANOTHER vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 364

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the denial of a stamp duty refund, ruling that the 8-year limitation period introduced by the U.P. Stamp (5th Amendment) Rules, 2021, applies prospectively and cannot defeat accrued rights.

The court ruled that the refund application must be reconsidered in light of these judgments and directed the concerned authorities to review and process the petitioners’ refund claim within three months. The writ petition was allowed.

X-'SS BEVERAGE CO. vsThe State of Assam CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 365

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court ruled that fruit pulp and juice-based carbonated drinks should be taxed at 12% GST instead of the 40% tax rate imposed by the state tax authorities.

The court held that the interest and penalty imposed under Section 74 were unsustainable, as the department had failed to establish any intent to evade taxes. The writ petition was allowed.

Kamalesh Chandrasekaranvs M.A.Noor Jehan Beevi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 366

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed the Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) to investigate a fake law firm allegedly operated by a non-lawyer under the guise of a legal practice.

The court ordered the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Preethi Baskar for professional misconduct. The police were instructed to take necessary action against any individuals found to be unlawfully practicing law. The case has now been referred for further investigation, and authorities have been directed to submit a status report on the matter.

VIP Housing andProperties vs The Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 367

The High Court of Madras quashed the reassessment notice over a change of opinion, ruling that the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year(AY)2014-15 was not supported by new material.

For AY 2014-15, the court found that the AO was already aware of the search and seizures. Since the reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than new material, the court quashed the reassessment notice dated March 31, 2021, and the order dated February 11, 2022. In short,the writ petition was allowed.

M/S B BRAUN MEDICALINDIA PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA &ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 368

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed a Rs. 5.65 crore GST ITC demand ruling that mere mention of the wrong branch GSTN does not justify denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the transaction is genuine and no fraudulent claim has been made.

The court set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to avail of ITC for the relevant financial years. The writ petition was partly allowed, with the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act being withdrawn after the relief was granted.

THE PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs ROHIT KARANJAIN CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 369

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court held that a retracted statement alone cannot be treated as incriminating evidence under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act and quashed the Rs. 4.23 crore addition made to the assessee’s income.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case. The court reaffirmed that completed assessments cannot be reopened under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act unless fresh incriminating material is found during a search operation. The court upheld the ITAT’s ruling, confirming that the addition of Rs. 4.23 crore was unsustainable in law.

M/S Ram Balak Gupta vsState of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 370

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand after finding that the department had uploaded notices and orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the “Due Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal.

The court further directed that all future proceedings be conducted only after ensuring proper notice delivery. The writ petition was allowed.

GAYRAT DJABAROV vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 371

The Delhi High Court recently upheld a customs penalty and fine amounting to ₹1,05,000 imposed on an Uzbek national for contravening provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 while bringing in 112 grams of gold through Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

The Petitioner was further given four weeks to complete the payment, after which the gold would be released to him or his authorized representative upon verification of identity.

AMIRHOSSEIN ALIZADEH vsTHE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 372

The Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.

Further held that “In case the goods are disposed of, the market value of the detained goods, as per the market rate prevalent today shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks. If the same is paid in four weeks, no interest would be payable. If the same is not paid, interest at the statutory rate would be payable from the date of detention.”

S K TAKAPPA S/O KALAPPAvs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 373

The Karnataka High Court has held that an GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal filed on the 90th day from the date of email communication of an order is valid and must be heard on merits.

Setting aside the impugned orders, the Court directed the authorities to hear the appeal on merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.

Тhe Kannur BuildingMaterials vs The State of Kerala CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 374

The Kerala High Court, in its recent judgment, has directed to avail the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the government and rejected the request to waive Value Added Tax (VAT) without opting for amnesty scheme many years.

A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham disposed of the writ petition, stating that “Till a decision is taken as directed above, the status quo order granted by this Court on 27.10.2021 shall continue. The petitioner shall submit necessary application in this regard within the time limit prescribed as per the Amnesty Scheme and if such application is not filed within the said time limit, the interim order granted by this Court on 27.10.2021 will stand vacated.”

M/s. Panchanan BirabaraJagdevray vs PrincipalCommissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 375

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court stayed the demand notice of service tax, alleging suppression of service tax. It was also found that the determination of the amount of service tax due was not made anywhere near within one year from date of the notice.

Mr. Kedia, advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. The bench required the revenue to issue instructions for being heard on adjourned date. Since Mr. Kedia prayed for two weeks, the bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo listed the matter on 27th March, 2025 and stayed the impugned order dated 16th August, 2024 till next date of hearing.

VODAFONE MOBILESERVICES LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 376

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted partial relief to Vodafone by directing the reassessment of Rs. 5.10 crore claimed as Asset Restoration Cost (ARC) under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

The court directed the tax authorities to reassess the claim under Section 37 to determine whether the provisioned amount qualifies as a business expense. The company did not receive outright relief but secured a chance to justify its claim under Section 37, potentially allowing the deduction in future proceedings. The case now returns to the tax authorities for reassessment.

M/S. CHENNITHALATHRIPPERUMTHURA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE vsINCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 377

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that co-operative societies must furnish information for TDS inquiries under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, even if they are exempt from TDS.

The court clarified that these societies may enjoy exemptions under Section 194A(3)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, but they are still subject to scrutiny by tax authorities. Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, the court upheld the validity of the notice issued by the Income Tax Department and confirmed the penalty imposed for non-compliance. The writ petition was dismissed.

Chokalingam Srinivasanvs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 378

The Madras High Court has ruled that uploading notices solely on the GST portal is insufficient service, while providing relief to an assessee who was unaware of the proceedings against him.

Additionally, the court treated the impugned order as a show cause notice and required the assessee to submit objections within four weeks. In the event of filing objections, the tax authority was instructed to consider them and grant a fair hearing before passing a fresh order. With these directions, the court disposed of the petition.

Amjad Ahmed Shaikh vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 379

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that tax proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased person are invalid and must be directed against legal heirs under Section 159 of the Income Tax Act.

The court quashed assessment orders and demand notices issued by the Income Tax Department against the late Ahmed Gulamnabi Shaikh, despite prior intimation of his demise but clarified that the department remains free to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed.

Hinduja GlobalSolutions Limited & Anr vs Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 380

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court granted an interim stay on a show-cause notice (SCN) issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port) against Hinduja Global Solutions Limited. The court found that the Customs authorities prima facie lacked jurisdiction to issue the SCN since the SEIS (Service Exports from India Scheme) scrips in question had not been canceled by the issuing authorities, namely Cochin EPZ and DGFT, Mumbai.

The High Court ordered an interim stay on the SCN until the final disposal of the writ petition. It also directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks, with the petitioner granted four weeks thereafter to file a reply. The matter has been scheduled for a full hearing in May 2025.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs WATERLINE HOTELS PVTLTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 381

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court clarified that income tax authorities cannot reject the Fair Market Value ( FMV ) of shares determined using methods prescribed by Rule 11UA(2) without clearly recording evidence that proves otherwise.

They pointed out that the tax authorities failed to conduct a proper factual inquiry or present concrete evidence to justify rejecting the valuation. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal of the Income Tax Department, confirming the deletion of the Rs. 33,71,77,500 addition made against the company.

M J GEORGE vs DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 382

In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court ruled that the taxpayer has the burden of proof to establish the agricultural nature of land when claiming exemption from capital gains tax.

The court pointed out the lack of substantial documentary proof of farming operations, including the absence of records relating to irrigation, farming expenditures, or labor payments, explaining that classification alone does not substantiate actual agricultural use. The Kerala High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s findings.

Madras HC Stays ED Attachment of Director S. Shankar’s ₹10Crore Property in ‘Enthiran’ PMLA-Copyright Infringement Case

S.Shankar vs The DeputyDirector CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 383

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (11 March, 2025) stayed a prior order passed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally attaching assets worth ₹10.11 crore belonging to revered Tamil film director S. Shankar.

The Madras High Court found merit in the plea raised by S. Shankar, and ordered a stay on the attachment of the property while directing the agency to file its counter arguments by April 21, 2025.

M/S Jaya TradersThrough Its Proprietor Mr. VishwanathTiwari vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 384

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings, meaning that the assessee conveying the commodities bears the burden of demonstrating the actual physical movement of the goods. It also said that if a product is undervalued, the government can confiscate it.

The bench ruled in rejecting the appeal that the assessee transporting the commodities had to disclose the actual worth of the goods. It was decided that if the commodities were not declared to be of their actual value, the authorities could seize them.

RAIN CII CARBON VIZAGLTD & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 385

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that the presence of DGFT headquarters in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction over matters related to the rejection of Advance Authorisation applications by regional DGFT offices.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition ruling that jurisdiction should be determined based on where the primary cause of action arises, not the location of an authority’s headquarters.

Indian Oil CorporationLtd vs The State of Bihar CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 386

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court quashed Rs. 5,463 crore sales tax demand against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) citing that the reassessment order was antedated and time-barred.

The court held that the reassessment order was legally invalid, quashed the Rs. 5,463 crore tax demand, and imposed a Rs. 1 lakh cost on the tax department for procedural lapses. The court also directed the Bihar Tax Department to initiate an internal inquiry and take responsibility for the delay and misconduct. The writ petition was allowed.

Principal Commissionerof Income Tax vs M/s. TariniMinerals Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 387

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court held that mining without environmental clearance does not automatically constitute illegal mining for taxation purposes and ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot disallow expenses under Explanation (1) to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act unless illegal activity is conclusively proven.

The court upheld the ITAT’s decision, stating that the tax department failed to prove illegal activity. The court explained that expenses can only be disallowed under Section 37(1) if a penalty is imposed and claimed as a deduction, which was not the case here. Since no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT’s order, the court dismissed the appeal.

Principal Commissionerof Income-tax - 14 vs M/s BuniyadChemicals Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 388

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court directed the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to investigate Chartered Accountants (CAs) operating without a Certificate of Practice (COP) who are allegedly engaged in illegal activities and possible professional misconduct.

The court also directed ICAI to examine whether CAs operating without a COP could be held accountable under the CA Act, 1949, and to report on any action taken against such individuals.

M/s. Pramoda KumarSwain vs Commissioner of CT and GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 389

In a recent case , the Orissa High Court directed to deposit reduced 10 % amount of Goods and Service Tax (GST) demanded, where the petition was filed to stay the recovery proceedings till the constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)

A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, the Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for the impugned first appellate order to remain stayed.

M/s.GilletteDiversified Operations Private Limited vs TheJoint Commissioner of GST andCentral Excise (Appeals-II) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 390

The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of M/s Gillette Diversified Operations Private Limited (Gillette), holding that its Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund claims were filed within the prescribed limitation period, rejecting the Revenue Department’s contention that they were time-barred.

While setting aside the impugned orders, the Madras High Court held that while Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, amended via Notification No. 15/2021-CT explicitly provides that the period spent rectifying deficiencies should be excluded from the limitation period, this provision cannot be applied retrospectively.

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA vsDEAYOUNG JUNG CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 391

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to enroll a South Korean national as an advocate within two days and held that BCI cannot deny enrolment without a legal basis.

The court dismissed the BCI’s appeal and directed that Jung’s enrolment must be completed within two days. The court also instructed the BCI to release Jung’s AIBE result without further delay. The matter was listed for further hearing on March 28, 2025, with a clear warning that no adjournments would be granted. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

DR. DOMA T. BHUTIA vsUNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 392

The Sikkim High Court has reaffirmed that the term “Sikkimese” as defined under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies exclusively for the purposes of computing tax and related matters under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and does not violate Article 371F(k) of the Constitution of India.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed that the clarificatory press release issued by the Ministry of Finance clearly states that the definition of “Sikkimese” within the Income Tax Act is for tax purposes only and has no bearing on the sanctity of rights and privileges reserved for genuine indigenous Sikkimese which are carefully preserved and protected under Article 371F (k) of the Constitution of India.

M/S TECMAX ELECTRONICSvs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 393

The Delhi High Court has refused to condone the delay in submitting a second appeal, stating that the assessee was negligent in following the order and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not at fault.

The two member panel of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be held accountable for sending the ruling to the appellant’s previous address. The appellant’s lack of promptness is evident in the fact that it has not bothered to confirm if the Commissioner (Appeals) issued any orders in the appeal that was preferred at its request. Additionally, the appellant was responsible for seeing if any orders had been issued in the appeal.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-1 vs M/S EAST DELHI LEASINGPVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 394

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that the legal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” applies strictly to penal laws and tax authorities require only “reason to believe” based on objective material to reopen assessments.

The court set aside ITAT ruling, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the merits. The court directed that the matter be reconsidered using appropriate tax law principles rather than criminal law standards.

MANAGING PARTNER vsJOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 395

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that vehicles registered as Goods Carriage Vehicles cannot be reclassified as Construction Equipment Vehicles solely for the purpose of levying a one-time tax.

The court rejected the reclassification and ruled that the government cannot change a vehicle’s classification after already taxing it under a different category. The court allowed the writ appeal.

HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD.vs STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKSCONTRACT) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 396

The Kerala High Court has held that 1% of the disputed Value Added Tax (VAT) amount has to be paid to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund from 07.04.2016. It was held that the amendment is prospective and can apply only to appeals arising from the year in which the amendment was effected and thereafter.

While allowing the appeal , the court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's appeal as defective. If the petitioner remits 0.5% of the disputed tax (if not already paid) in the aforesaid appeal to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund and also furnishes a personal bond without sureties before the Assessing Authority undertaking to pay the balance amount due under the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, if ultimately found payable, the Appellate Authority shall restore the appeal and consider the same on merits in accordance with law.

AMAL KRISHNA vs UNIONOF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 397

The Delhi High Court has held that the non-resident Indian (NRI) is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an eligible passenger under the Baggage Rules, 2016. Since the customs department had wrongfully seized NRI’s personal belongings, the court allowed them to avail of Baggage Rule benefits.

According to the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, the gold chain is personal property of the petitioner, an NRI, and hence could not have been confiscated in the way that the Customs department has. The court ordered that the petitioner’s gold item that had been confiscated by customs officers could be returned to the petitioner or any designated representative within two weeks of their identity being confirmed.

VALLAPUZHA SERVICECO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 398

The Kerala High Court recently reaffirmed that any tax assessment orders passed on ignorance of binding precedents set by higher courts are violative of the doctrine of precedent and thus unsustainable.

Observing a violation of the doctrine of precedent, the Kerala High Court proceeded to set aside the impugned assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessment afresh, after considering the principles laid down by binding Supreme Court rulings that had been previously adverted to.

M/S A.M. ENTERPRISES vsSTATE OF KARNATAKA REP CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 399

In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court quashed the blocking of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Rule 86A of the CGST/KGST Rules for solely relying on the enforcement authority reports without independent and cogent reasons to believe that justified such action.

The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, and directed the respondents to immediately unblock the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger. The court granted liberty to the department to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner as per law, following the procedural safeguards outlined in the K-9 Enterprises judgment.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX – 1 vs DCM SHRIRAMLTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 400

The Delhi High Court quashed the addition of Rs.26.52 crore on DCM Shriram Ltd. stating that SEB rates were appropriate to determine the market value of power transactions for claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., which held that power pricing should be benchmarked against SEB rates rather than the rates at which surplus electricity is sold in the market. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that the ₹26.52 crore addition against the assessee was unjustified. In short, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.