Annual Tax & Corporate Law Digest 2025: Complete High Court Cases [Part VII]

KERALEEYAM AYURVEDICRESORT A UNIT OF SD PHARMACY PVT.LTD. vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 401

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court upheld the imposition of luxury tax on Keraleyam Ayurvedic Resort, ruling that the Ayurvedic treatment offered by the resort was only incidental to its main activities as a hospitality service provider.

The court held that the Ayurvedic treatment was not the principal service offered so the resort could not claim exemption from luxury tax. The court dismissed the writ appeals

NARAYANA RAMA BHAT AGED74 YEARS 17/63 vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INTELLIGENCE) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 402

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has held that a composite order under Central Goods and Service Tax (GST) for several years is not legally proper and directed the department to pass a separate order.

The court directed the second respondent to pass separate orders in respect of each of the financial years pursuant to notice. In respect of the financial year 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 a time limit of one month from today is granted to the petitioner to file a reply and thereafter appropriate orders can be passed for those years also separately. The orders shall be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

M/S. KUMARAKOMVADAKKUMBHAGOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX& CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 403

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court dismissed the customs appeal due to the non compliance of predeposit condition under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The bench directed the appellant to seek remedies available under the law.

The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to contest the matter on merits by payment of pre-deposit.

M/s. Harekrushna Sahoovs Chief Commissioner of CT and GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 404

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court set aside the proceedings initiated under section 73 of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST) Act, 2017 without providing an opportunity for hearing.

A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, the Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo observed that the initiation of the proceeding under section 73 was clearly without jurisdiction and the impugned order was set aside and quashed.

THE STATE OF KERALA vsM/S.CHOWDHARY RUBBER &CHEMICALS PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 405

The Kerala High Court stated that revenue there cannot exercise power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The division bench of Justices A.Y. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S ruled that the revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report.

While allowing the petition the bench held that in cases where the completion of an assessment under the KVAT Act has become time barred by virtue of the limitation provisions under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, the Revenue cannot proceed to re-assess an assessee on the basis of a subsequent report obtained from the CAG.

MS SHYAM INDUS POWERSOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 406

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court slams that the phrase “where it is possible to do so,” used in Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994, could not be treated as a license to keep tax proceedings pending for years without resolution.

The court held that statutory language such as “where it is possible to do so” provides limited flexibility for exceptional situations not a blanket justification for administrative lethargy. The court observed that the CGST department had not presented any insurmountable reasons for the inordinate delay, and pinpointed that had one of the SCNs been adjudicated quickly in 2015, the other similar SCNs could have followed suit. The writ petition was disposed of.

M/S Mishra Enterprisesvs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Tax And Registration Lko And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 407

The Allahabad High Court quashed an order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017, stating violation of mandatory procedural requirements under Section 75(4) of the Act.

The Court declared the order to be unsustainable and quashed it. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority with instructions to pass a fresh order in compliance with the law providing a hearing opportunity to the petitioner.

DISH TV INDIA LIMITED vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OFCOMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 408

The Karnataka High Court recently remanded a case involving the inclusion of service tax while levying the entertainment tax to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. The court ruled in favour of the petitioner observing that entertainment tax and service tax must be taxed separately.

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to address the petitioner’s claims, including the treatment of invoices and the constitutional implications of taxing service tax. The Tribunal was instructed to conclude the matter within three months, ensuring all parties are heard.

DNH Spinners Private Limited vs Deputy CommissionerofIncome-tax, Principal Commissioner, Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 409

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has ruled that its discretionary powers cannot be exercised to prevent the officers from proceedings with income tax assessment cases involving huge undisclosed income.

The court made it clear that the present case requires factual based investigation and as the petitioner has alternate remedy, it may avail that. The bench reiterated its reluctance to interfere in matters requiring factual investigation and dismissed the petitions, directing the petitioner to raise all issues in appeal proceedings under the Act.

M/s Reengus Sikar Expressway Limited vsAdditionalDirector, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 410

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court stayed the recovery of GST on annuity payments received under the hybrid annuity model for highway construction considering the challenge to the validity of Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021.

The Bench comprising Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali observed that the issue required consideration. The court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in relation to the GST recovery proceedings initiated under the order dated 09.01.2025. The matter has been listed for further hearing after eight weeks.

BHUSHAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIATHROUGH FINANCE SECRETARY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 411

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that IFCI Limited (previously Industrial Finance Corporation of India) has no authority to withhold shares pledged by a borrower while availing a loan, once the borrower has fully repaid the loan.

Holding that IFCI’s actions amounted to unjust enrichment, the Delhi High Court directed IFCI to release to the petitioners all the pledged shares which had now been converted to Tata Steel shares within a period of six weeks.

Tushar Tanwar vs Bar Council of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 412

In a recent order, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to a representation challenging the fee structure of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

The court explained the procedural fairness and accountability, leaving the substantive questions regarding the legality of the AIBE fee open for future adjudication. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

JAI DURGA RUBBERISED FABRICS INDIA PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 413

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court criticized the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) for passing several contradictory calling it “comedy of errors” and pointed out that the Department’s appeal should not have been entertained at all because it involved a small amount much below the official limit for filing such appeals.

The Court stated that continuing the case would serve no useful purpose and the Department’s own rules didn’t support the appeal. So, the matter should be closed. The court invoked Article 227 of the Indian Constitution to dismiss the Department’s appeal once and for all. The Court also ordered that the bank guarantee, which Jai Durga had provided more than 14 years ago, should be returned within eight weeks.

M/S D M JEWELLERS vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 414

In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court stayed coercive recovery proceedings due to two separate assessment orders passed for the same tax period on different grounds.

The court directed that no recovery or enforcement proceedings be taken during the pendency of the writ petition. Direct service through email was permitted to expedite communication.

Rebat Kumar Sahu vs Superintendent, CGST, GanjamII Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 415

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court directed the revocation of cancelled Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of a registrant upon his express willingness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the department to accept his GST forms.

Maintaining precedence with the ruling of the coordinate Bench, Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Arindam Sinha disposed of the writ petition, passing an order of the same effect in Mohanty Enterprises, providing the Petitioner relief in the interest of Revenue.

M/S. ITMA HOTELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE ADDITIONALCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 417

The Kerala High Court recently held that the Customs Department does not have the liberty to invoke expired bank guarantees to recover any outstanding duties payable by an entity who had availed the benefits of the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme.

However, regarding the Customs’ claim that the Bank was contractually obliged to keep the Bank Guarantees alive, the Kerala High Court abstained from touching upon the specific questions of fact and proceeded to allow the Writ Petition while leaving open the rights of the Respondents to prefer recourse through appropriate proceedings.

State. Vs. Rahul Dhingra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 418

In a recent ruling, a Gurugram court granted bail to two accused in a Rs. 7.13 crore GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud case, primarily on the ground that their alleged individual gains fell below the Rs. 5 crore threshold required to attract non-bailable provisions under the CGST Act.

The bail was granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount. The court clarified that its findings were limited to the bail stage and would not influence the merits of the case during trial.

Madhusudan Banik vs State of West Bengal & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 419

The Calcutta High Court recently set aside an appellate order rejecting a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal, citing the absence of a reasoned decision provided by the Respondent Commissioner of Revenue, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Appellate Authority was directed to set a date for personal healing wherein the Appellant may make his presence in person or through an authorized representative and present his written submissions without seeking adjournment.

WILHELMSEN PORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.vsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 420

The Calcutta High Court recently ruled in favor of Wilhelmsen Port Services India Private Limited, exempting the company from making a 10% payment of the disputed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amount, observing that the ITC claim in question was revenue-neutral and did not lead to any loss to the government exchequer.

However, the Bench clarified that the present decision was passed purely in light of the unique facts and circumstances of the present case and thus should not be treated as a precedent for future matters.

NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS vsUNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 421

The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that the service charge levied by restaurants and hotels is not a mandatory tax, while directing the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to consider revising the terminology on bills to avoid misleading unassuming consumers.

While dismissing the writ petitions, the Delhi High Court also slapped costs of ₹1 Lakh each on the Petitioners that are to be deposited with Central Consumer Protection Authority to be utilized for consumer welfare.

TPL – HGIEPL Joint Venture vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 422

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court held that automated systems, including AI-driven tax portals, must adhere to the principles of natural justice and cannot reject tax returns without providing proper reasoning.

The court directed that if such an application is filed within four weeks, the Commissioner must dispose of it within three months, after giving the petitioner a proper hearing and passing a reasoned order. The writ petition was dismissed

MOHAMMAD ARHAM vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 423

The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not issued to the assessee within such period. The court directed the release of detained goods.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prescribes a period of six months. Further, subject to complying with certain formalities, a further extension for a period of six months for the Department to issue a show cause notice can be given in terms of Section 110(5).

M/S GOURISHANKAR POLYMER INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 424

The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of monetary limits guidelines is not applicable in disputes relating to the product classification for customs duty.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta remanded the matter to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi for a fresh adjudication on the classification issue itself and not to dispose of the matter on merely the monetary limit. The court held that this is an old matter, CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi shall dispose of the matter within three months.

M/S FORGING INDIA IRON AND STEEL LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIAAND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 425

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has directed to file appeal under section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 against the wrongful availment of Input Tax credit ( ITC ) upon fake document corroborated with statement of directors of the company.

In the light of the fact that the time for preferring the appeal has already expired, the bench directed the assessee to file the appeal within 45 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this order and the assessee shall comply with the pre-deposit condition. The assessee shall be permitted to file the appeal manually as the online filing may not be possible as appeal is belated.

M.Vijay Anand Kalandar Seeni Ahmed vs The Customs, Exciseand Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 426

The High Court of Madras, upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) pre-deposit condition in a customs duty drawback evasion case, citing the assessee’s prolonged delay and non-compliance.

Observing that the assessee kept the appeal pending for over eight years without pursuing them or paying the pre-deposit, the Court dismissed the appeals for lack of merit. It directed the appellants to pay the pre-deposit within six weeks if they wished to continue. Otherwise, the Department was permitted to take legal action against them.

M/s. S and T Plastic Machines Private Limited vsTheCommissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 427

The Madras High Court dismissed the premature challenge made by the assessee to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and directed the respondent authorities to adjudicate the matter after considering the assessee’s reply. The bench observed that SCN cannot be challenged prematurely unless it pertains to jurisdiction or lack of authority

The single bench of the High Court of Madras, comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose, noted that the only limited relief that can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition was to direct the respondents to consider the reply dated 03.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.10.2024 on merits.

Javed Ahmed Khan vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 428

The Calcutta High Court has directed to reconsider the claim of transitional credit considering the technical breach faced by assessee in obtaining provisional ID for GST migration.

The court set aside the order and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge to consider the application filed by the appellant/writ petitioner afresh bearing in mind the observations made in the preceding paragraphs which are to the effect that the application filed by the appellant/writ petitioner for new GST registration was not voluntary but on the direction issued by the department. In this regard, appropriate order be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant/writ petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of server copy of the order.

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX vs M/SSIMPLEXINFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 429

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the bounds of power exercisable by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East, seeking to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, to impose service tax liability on a company for the period between 2004 and 2009.

In light of the observations made, the Delhi High Court proceeded to dismiss the matter and all pending applications.

FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM NO.2 vs K. SASILAL CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 430

The Kerala High Court recently delivered a judgment clarifying the scope of limitation exercisable by the Revenue in terms of the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act, 1963.

In light of the observations made, the Kerala High Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal, reaffirming that the absence of a limitation period under Section 17D does not imply that tax authorities have unchecked discretion to act arbitrarily, in contravention of statutory principles.

The South India Spinners Association vs The ChairmancumManaging Director Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 431

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that network charges cannot be levied separately on rooftop solar power users, as such charges are already factored into the existing electricity tariff structure.

The court set aside the impugned order and held that no further charges could be collected beyond what was already stipulated in the tariff, and that any such attempt would amount to double recovery. The writ petitions were allowed, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Legal Action not initiable over any claims that are not included in resolution plan: Bombay HC

Garden Silk Mills Limited vs Gayatri Industries CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 432

The Bombay High Court dismissed an Interim Application filed by the Appellant seeking the release of the bank guarantees, holding that all claims which are not part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished, and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any such claim.

While dismissing the petition, the court held that the debt of respondent stand extinguished and no right vests in the Respondent in respect of the bank guarantees or to oppose the release of bank guarantees.

LUFTHANSA CARGO AG vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX& ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 433

As a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa Cargo AG, the Delhi High Court set aside the revenue’s order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia allowed the petition and directed the issuance of the certificate for nil withholding tax under Section 197 of the Act. It was further held that issuance of the certificate shall not preclude the AO from examining whether the income/receipts of the petitioner are chargeable to tax in India in assessment proceedings, uninfluenced by the order.

M/s. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited No.9 vsTheAssistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Company Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 434

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court clarified the legal interplay between Section 40A(7)(b) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, ruling that where contributions are made to an approved gratuity fund, the specific provision under Section 40A(7)(b) would prevail over the general provision of Section 43B, despite both sections containing non-obstante clauses.

The court answered all substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and allowed the appeal. The court set aside the disallowance and confirmed the legitimacy of deductions made under Section 40A(7)(b) of the Income Tax Act in relation to an approved gratuity fund.

AMW AUTO COMPONENT LIMITED vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX RAJKOT 1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 435

The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) could not issue a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to revise the assessment order of an assessee once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan (CIRP) is approved, which extinguishes all prior tax liabilities.

In such regard, the Notice issued by the Revenue stood legally untenable and lacked merit, prompting the Gujarat High Court to quash the notice issued under Section 263.

QAMAR JAHAN vs UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BYSECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 436

The Delhi High Court, while adjudicating a recent matter, directed the Customs Department to sensitize its officials and implement immediate measures to prevent the unlawful detention of personal gold and old jewellery carried by air travellers, both Indian and foreign.

The court further instructed the CBIC and Customs Department to implement sensitization initiatives to educate officials on the distinction between personal jewellery and commercial gold imports while demanding that a compliance report on the directives be submitted before the next hearing; alternatively if the Baggage Rules cannot be amended by the next date of hearing, a Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter “SOP”) shall be placed on record by then,

M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR vs DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 437

The Delhi High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Chartered Accountant (CA), who was working as a financial consultant for Prakash Industries Ltd. (PIL), upon observing the lack of corroborative evidence to prove allegations of criminal conspiracy and bribing.

Reiterating that a criminal conviction requires a higher threshold of evidence and that the prosecution failed to demonstrate Agarwal’s direct involvement in the alleged bribery scheme, the Bench concluded that the FIR could not be sustained and accordingly quashed the proceedings against him.

M/S KOTDWAR STEEL LIMITED vs OFFICE OF THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 438

The Uttarakhand High Court has criticized the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department for arbitrary action against businesses by blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) before the issuance of show cause notice (SCN).

When the matter was listed on April 29, 2025, the court ruled that an interim order would be granted as requested and that any action would need to be properly compliant with the GST Act’s rules.

M/S.Aathees Wetcasting Materials (P) Ltd vs TheCommercialTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 440

In a recent judgement, the Madras High Court held that tax authorities must follow official clarifications from higher officials and cannot reclassify tax liabilities arbitrarily.

The court found the AO’s action to be a colorable exercise of power, as it disregarded a valid directive from a higher official. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned assessment order.

Karthik Alloys Limited vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 441

The Bombay High Court set aside duty drawback demand under Customs Act, 1962 as it was after approval of the resolution plan. It was observed that a claim brought to the fore during the pendency of the moratorium period after the claims have been recorded by the adjudicating authority would stand waived off in terms of Section 31A of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

A division bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta found that the respondents did not lodge their demand in respect of the duty drawbacks against the petitioner during the CIRP. Admittedly, the claim of the respondents is not a part of the approved resolution plan. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that a claim brought to the fore during the pendency of the moratorium period after the claims have been recorded by the adjudicating authority would stand waived off in terms of Section 31A of the code. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

MALABAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LTD vs THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 442

By overturning the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision, the Kerala High Court held that the orders made under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can’t be construed as a closed remand under any circumstances.

The court ruled that the Section 263 order was an open remand, meaning the assessee was not required to challenge it separately. As a result, it was held that the tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal on this ground.Based on this finding, the court set aside the tribunal’s decision and restored the appeal for reconsideration on merits.

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Union ofIndia& Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 443

The Bombay High Court recently stayed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand of approximately ₹2,500 crore raised against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., observing that the revenue authorities’ interpretation of the statutory provisions in claiming that Coca Cola had undervalued its goods was prima facie flawed.

Furthermore, the Bench prima facie observed infirmity with the impugned order and thus granted an ad-interim relief staying the implementation of the order and preventing any coercive steps pursuant to the show-cause notice or the final order. The Bombay High Court proceeded to post the matter to 29 April, 2025 for admission and possible disposal.

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs Union ofIndia& Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 443

The Bombay High Court has made a preliminary observation that Post-Sale Discounts are allowable under section 15(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in a case pertaining to alleged contraventions of the Goods and Services Tax Act by way of discounts on the basis of past transactions by Hindustan Coca-Cola.

The bench of Justices Firdosh P. Pooniwalla and B. P. Colabawalla noted that, “As far as the interim relief is concerned, we find that the strong prima facie case is made out for staying the effect and implementation of the impugned order. We say this because as recorded earlier, we do not find at least prima facie that the reasoning employed by the 3rd Respondent is correct.” The case is now listed for hearing to 29th April, 2025.

JANUS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 444

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was issued beyond the permissible 10-year limit under the amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

The court clarified that for non-searched persons, the ten-year period is to be computed from the date the seized materials are handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. As the notice dated 06 February 2024 attempted to reassess AY 2014–15, the court found it clearly beyond the statutory timeframe. The court allowed the writ petition.

UNITAC ENERGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 445

The Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Commissioner to expeditiously dispose of the rectification petition filed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The single bench of Justice Kurian Thomas viewed that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction and directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on rectification petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

S K TAKAPPA S/O KALAPPA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFCOMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 446

The Karnataka High Court quashed the rejection of a Goods Service Tax (GST) appeal filed on the 90th day, holding that it was within the time limit prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act,2017.

A single member bench comprising S.G.Pandit (Judge) also noted that the petitioner had filed a rectification application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, if any. Since the appeal was within the condonable period, the second respondent should have considered it properly. Instead, it failed to apply its mind and rejected the appeal without giving the assessee a chance to be heard. In short,the petition filed was disposed of.

STS-KEC(JV) vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 447

The Madras High Court recently held that works contract awarded by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) to a developer for the purposes of railway infrastructure development is liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the concessional rate of 12%, and not 18%.

In light of all the observations, the Bench proceeded to set aside the impugned orders while clarifying that the contract between the Petitioner and RVNL would be covered by the 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%.

M/S. NAKODA AUTO DISTRIBUTORS vs THE ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 449

The High Court of Karnataka, quashed the ex-parte order and the summary order after noting that the petitioner could not respond to Goods and Service Tax(GST) show-cause notices due to his father’s prolonged illness and eventual demise on 13.02.2024.

Considering these circumstances, the Court quashed the ex-parte orders dated 31.10.2023 and 16.11.2023 and granted the petitioner thirty days to file objections. It directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority on 06.03.2025. The Court clarified that the petitioner could not raise the issue of limitation and that any amount recovered through attachment would be subject to the final decision of the authority.

Tata Communications Limited vs Deputy CommissionerofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 450

The High Court of Bombay, quashed an income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee for Assessment Year(AY) 2014-15, holding that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked any failure to fully and truly disclose material facts.

The assessee had also asked the department to treat its earlier return as a response to the Section 148 notice, which the court accepted as valid compliance.As the reassessment proceedings lacked legal basis, the court quashed both the reassessment notice and the assessment order.