M/S Unique EngineeringEnterprises Pvt. Ltd vs AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 451

The High Court of Telangana, set aside income tax garnishee notices issued, against bank accounts of the assessee observing that the notices were issued despite the pendency of appeals and a stay application.

As a result, the bench set aside the garnishee notice dated 08.01.2025 and directed the authorities to decide the appeal and stay application first, and then proceed as per law. In short,the writ petition was disposed of.

ATHREYA CONSTRUCTIONS vs THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 452

The High Court of Karnataka directed the concerned authorities to consider the assessee’s representation within eight weeks regarding the applicable Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) rate on a work order issued before the rate hike, noting that the work was carried out when the GST rate stood at 12,% and a supporting circular backed the assessee’s claim.

Respondents were directed to consider the representation in light of the Circular and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.In short, the writ petition was disposed of.

M/s Vallabha EstatesPvt. Ltd vs The State of Telangana CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 453

The Telangana High Court, while disposing of a writ petition, directed the concerned authorities to consider and act on a representation seeking the de-notification of land that was wrongly listed under prohibited properties due to an attachment.

A single-member bench of N.V. Shravan Kumar (Justice) noted that the assessee’s representation dated 02.01.2025 was still pending. It directed the authorities to consider it and take action as per law within three weeks of receiving the order and inform the assessee. In short, the writ petition was disposed of.

Giriraj Pugalia S/oRatan Lal Pugalia vs AssistantCommissioner Of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 454

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the legitimacy of transactions of ₹1 Crore, unearthed on the basis of WhatsApp chats against which proceedings under Section 153C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, were sought to be conducted.

After examining the material and the legal framework, the Rajasthan High Court held that digital evidence like WhatsApp chats, when corroborated by seized documents and other tangible evidence, falls within the ambit of “documents” under Section 153C and thus proceeded to dismiss the Petition, after the finding the case to be satisfy the requirements to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

CENVAT Credit cannot be disallowed merely on non-submission of User Test Certificate: Madras HC

A division bench of Justice R.Suresh Kumar and Justice G.Arul Murugan found that merely because in respect of some other assessees, such a User Test Certificate was sought for or produced voluntarily, or the User Test Theory has been adopted by the Adjudicating Authority, in each and every case, such a User Test Theory need not be adopted.

The court observed that the show cause notices, which were under challenge before the writ court, cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee, and dismissed the petitions filed by the revenue.

H.P. State CivilSupplies Corporation Ltd. vs Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax &another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 456

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh ruled that leave encashment payments made after the end of the financial year cannot be claimed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act,1961 unless the liability had actually accrued during that year.

The Court concluded that the deduction was rightly disallowed since the liability was not incurred in the relevant year and Section 43B(f) had to be followed. In short,the appeal was dismissed.

IVRCL- Navayuga-SEW vsState of Telangana Represented bySpecial Chief Secretary to Government CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 457

The Telangana High Court, while dealing with a Goods and Service Tax(GST) linked works contract dispute, directed payment of interest at 6% per annum for delay in releasing ₹80.26 crore towards price adjustment, despite an earlier court order.

Additionally, the Court permitted the petitioner to request the constitution of a Disputes Adjudication Board (DAB) under Clause 20 of the contract to adjudicate further claims such as interest on disputed portions, and directed the respondents to constitute the DAB within six weeks of such a request. In short the writ petition was allowed in part.

Rockfield Mining andMinerals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs TheState of West Bengal & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 458

In a recent petition, which is against the appellate order that allows the initiation of the Goods and Service tax recovery proceedings, the Calcutta High Court stayed the same considering the non constitution of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

As the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted,the court viewed that the petition should be heard. Since, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case, there shall be an unconditional stay of the demand of the Appellate order dated 19th March, 2024, for a period of two weeks from date. The single bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the petitioner to make payment of 10% of the balance amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount already deposited in terms of Section 107(6) of the said Act, within two weeks from date, the interim order passed herein, shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier.

AIR ASIA (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KARNATAKA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 459

The High Court of Karnataka granted relief to Air Asia (India) Private Limited by quashing criminal proceedings initiated under the pre-amendment version of Section 197(15) of the Companies Act,2013.

As a result, the bench found that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were not maintainable and quashed the complaint dated June 18, 2022, and the order of cognisance dated June 22, 2022, passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences in Bengaluru. However, it allowed the authorities to proceed under Section 454 of the Companies Act, if applicable. In short, the petition was allowed.

M/s Deluxe Enterprisesvs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 460

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed the assessment order passed by the Baddi officer for Assessment Year 2009–10, holding that the transfer of jurisdiction was made without following the mandatory procedure under Section 127 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961.

As the petitioner had objected to the jurisdiction, the issue should have been addressed after hearing the petitioner and giving reasons for the transfer. The Court allowed the appeal and writ petition, and quashed the assessment orders. However, it clarified that fresh proceedings could still be initiated by following the proper legal route.

KVJ BUILDERS &DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE TAXOFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 461

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition challenging the order of determination under Section 73 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST), while observing that failure to respond to Goods and Service Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN) send to email despite reminder does not amounts to invalid service of notice.

The writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies if available and in accordance with law.

ST.JOSEPH EDUCATIONALAND CHARITABLE TRUST vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 462

Relying In Re cognizance for the extension of limitation in the case, the Kerala High Court sets aside the income tax order, which declined to condone the 25-day delay in filing the audit report. It was found that the delay in filing the audit report occurred at a time when Covid-19 Pandemic had struck the country.

Since the change in dates has caused confusion to many persons and the delay is very minimal, the single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of view that a rigid stance ought not to have been adopted. The court set aside the order declining to condone the delay in filing the audit report.

SREE KALIKA PARAMESWARIVISHWA KARMA SAMAJ SABHA BANGARAvs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 463

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court directed the income tax department to dispose of the income tax apparel filed 9 years ago. Considering the long year gap in disposing of the appeal, the bench directed it to dispose of the appeal within 3 months.

Considering the long delay, the court made a direction to the competent appellate authority to dispose of the income tax appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months.

Mere issuance of Liquidation Notice before Master Directions does not negate Obligation to comply with Directions in Judgment: Kerala HC

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has held that mere issuance of a liquidation notice before master directions does not negate the obligation to comply with the directions in the judgment

A single bench of Justice C. S.Dias held that the mere fact that a show cause was issued before the Master Directions does not negate the obligation to comply with the directions in the judgment and the Master Directions. As there is an infraction of both the directions in Rajesh Agarwal's case and Master Directions by respondents 2, the court quashed the order and directed the 2nd respondent to furnish the petitioners a copy of the audit report of the competent authority and finalise the proceedings as per the procedure laid down in Chapter II of the Master Directions.

M/s. Joharimal HighSchool, Cuttack vs The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 465

The Orissa High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to reconsider the delayed filing of Form-10B by a petitioner, stating that the explanation offered by the assessee constituted sufficient cause under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice B.P. Routray set aside the impugned order and allowed the condonation application. The Court directed the authority to now consider Form-10B on its merits and decide the matter with reasons in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of the order.

TATA Steel Ltd. vsState of Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 466

In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court directed the State GST department to refund Rs. 1.23 crore to Tata Steel Ltd., ruling that the rejection of its Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim on Compensation Cess was based on invalid and extraneous grounds not supported by law.

The court also observed that the appellate authority had failed to apply the correct legal principles, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court quashed the refund rejection order and the appellate order and directed the State GST authorities to process and refund Rs. 1,23,22,617 along with interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the court’s order. The writ petition was allowed.

SAJAD AHMED KAK vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 467

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to pass a refund order within one month in favour of the petitioner whose confiscated gold was disposed of without proper intimation. The Court passed this order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Sajad Ahmed Kak, who sought the return or refund of the value of three gold bars weighing 457.95 grams, confiscated from him over a decade ago.

Given the rise in gold prices and the prolonged inaction, the Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Manoj Jain directed the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether any notice was given to the petitioner prior to disposal, ascertain the amount recovered from the disposal, and determine if any interest is payable in law. The refund order is to be passed within one month from the date of the judgment. The petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek revival if the directions are not complied with.

LITHIUMURBANTECHNOLOGIESPVT.LTDvsCOMMISSIONEROFVALUEADDEDTAX &ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 468

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that a dealer is not entitled to interest on a VAT refund for the period during which the delay in processing the refund was caused by the dealer itself.

The court found no merit in the claim for interest prior to February 2023 and upheld the Special Commissioner’s order dated July 5, 2023. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The court allowed the request, and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHALENDER KUMAR vsCOMMISSIONER DELHI WEST CGSTCOMMISSIONERATE & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 469

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department cannot withhold the refund permitted by the appellate authority, as no review order has been passed against the order.

The Court observed that unless a timely and valid challenge is instituted, the refund order cannot be unilaterally disregarded. It further noted that unjustified withholding of refunds is contrary to the law and financially detrimental to the revenue due to accruing interest.

Dia Gold Jewels PrivateLimited vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-2 & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 470

The Calcutta High Court upheld the seizure of gold totaling ₹4.71 crores taken for exhibition by the Income Tax Department and Railway Protection Force (RPF) at the Ranchi Railway Station in November 2022 on grounds of absence of bill book or alternate source for providing cash memos. The seizure of the jewelry was held by the court as valid and complying with the procedures of Income tax Act, 1961.

The High Court also reiterated the principle that legitimate business transactions must be supported by complete and accurate documentation, particularly when goods of high value are in transit.

M/S RAJ INTERNATIONALvs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGSTDELHI WEST & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 471

Recently, the Delhi High Court, in a writ petition, has provided directions to the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) department regarding the disposal of procedural matters on the first day of hearing.

Accordingly, the Court impressed upon the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi Zone, to consider deputing at least two officers from the litigation section. These officers would serve as liaisons with various Commissionerates under the GST department to ensure quick coordination and instruction to counsels. The matter is now scheduled to be listed on 21st April 2025.

A. R. SulphonatesPrivate Limited vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 472

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that no interest, penalty, or redemption fine could be levied on importers for unpaid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) under the Advance Authorization Scheme for imports made before August 16, 2024, and held amendment applies prospectively.

The court set aside the impugned adjudication order to the extent that it imposed interest, penalty, and fine, and declared that the 2024 amendment to Section 3(12) of the Tariff Act applies only prospectively. The writ petition was allowed.

Silicon Institute ofTechnology vs Commissioner of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 473

In a recent judgment, the Orissa High Court granted relief to an assessee for a marginal delay of just over an hour in uploading its audit report in Form 10B.

The court found the impugned order denying condonation to be arbitrary and lacking proper reasoning, thereby quashing the matter. The Orissa High Court also directed that the audit report filed by the petitioner be treated as due compliance, thereby granting relief to the petitioner.

Alkem LaboratoriesLimited vs The Deputy Director ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 474

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Patna imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for delayed litigation, following a challenge by the petitioner against an arbitrary adjustment in the Income Tax Section 143(1) intimation order.

While interest was paid, the court decided to impose a cost of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for the litigation. The amount was to be paid to the Lawyers’ Association Welfare Benevolent Fund within four months of receiving the order.

M/S Famus India vsState Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 475

The High Court of Allahabad,confirmed the penalty due to non-compliance with Goods and Service Tax(GST) Rules for job work transport, finding that the petitioner failed to issue a complete challan.

The Court examined the challan produced by the ACSC and found it lacked necessary details, violating the Rules. The bench concluded that the proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act were not arbitrary. In short,the writ petition was dismissed.

AMRITA INSTITUTE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) KOCHI (2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 476

In a ruling in favour of Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research, the Kerala High Court directed the income tax department to dispose of the appeal within 3 months.The matter was related to non disposal of appeal on applicability of Tax deducted at source (TDS) deduction made to doctors engaged by the hospital.

The bench directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders or appeals relating to the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months. It was further held that till then, all coercive proceedings pursuant assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance.

M/s.Shanker Impexx vsTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 477

The High Court of Madras,quashed the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for late filing of GSTR-3B, citing the retrospective amendment to the Central Goods and Service Tax(CGST) Act,2017.

Taking these developments into account, the Court quashed the earlier orders, directed the Department not to proceed on the issue of limitation, and ordered de-freezing of bank accounts. It also allowed refund or adjustment of any amount already recovered. Since the present case involved the same issue, the bench allowed the Writ Petition on the same lines.

Rebate Claim: Madras HC Rules Cenvat Credit Not Liable to Lapse Under Rule 11(3)(i) of CCR

The AssistantCommissioner of Central Excise vs M/s.ValliTextile Mills CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 478

The High Court of Madras, dismissed writ appeals filed by the department in a rebate claim dispute, holding that Cenvat credit was not liable to lapse under Rule 11(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

However, the court clarified that granting relief did not imply endorsement of the appellate authority’s reasoning, nor did it examine the issue of retrospective application of Rule 11(3). In short,the writ appeal was dismissed.

M/s Hindustan PipesSales vs State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 479

The High Court of Allahabad, quashed the demand order quashed the demand order after finding that the notices were uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab on the Goods and Service Tax(GST) portal instead of the ‘Due Notices and Orders’ tab, which prevented the petitioner from responding in time.

The division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra relying on the above judgment, allowed the present writ petition and quashed the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax.The authority was directed to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days’ clear time and proceed in accordance with law.

G.Indraprasath vs ThePrincipal Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 480

The High Court of Madras, directed the adjudicating authority under the Customs Act to pass a speaking order on the petitioner’s request to cross-examine specific Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI) officers before proceeding with the adjudication of show cause notices.

Justice Abdul Quddhose directed the authorities to decide on the petitioners’ request for cross-examination based on merit and in line with the law, after giving a personal hearing. If the request was to be rejected, a detailed speaking order had to be passed and communicated within a week. Only after this, the authorities could proceed with final adjudication based on the show cause notices.

Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-12 vs M/s Drisha Impex Pvt.Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 481

The Bombay High Court recently used the peak of purchases method to ascertain and uphold an income tax addition of ₹6.15 crore on a trader with regard to alleged bogus purchases done during the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

In light of the observations, the High Court proceeded to reverse the order passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, and answered the case in favour of the Revenue, restoring the addition made by the assessment officers in the assessment orders.

M/s Jammu and KashmirBank Ltd vs Union of India and Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 482

In a recent order, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh stayed the recovery of a GST demand and penalty totaling Rs. 16,261 crore issued against Jammu and Kashmir Bank.

The bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani observed that the matter raised huge legal issues and ordered an interim stay on the GST demand notice. The case is scheduled for the next hearing on May 7, 2025.

Surender Gupta vs StateGst / Additional Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 483

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) was recently directed by the Allahabad High Court to reimburse the assessee the amount that was assessed as a tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The decision was based on the finding that the GST was imposed under the wrong head.

The bench had found that NOIDA had acknowledged its error in failing to deposit the petitioner’s tax under the incorrect heading. The Court determined that the contested orders were not capricious in light of these factors. Relying on decision of the Supreme Court in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another regarding computation of compensation, Justice Piyush Agrawal directed NOIDA to pay Rs.19,22,778/- (the penalty determined by the assessing authority) to the petitioner.

UMESH KUMAR VS PRCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 484

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court found that importers were aware of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) misuse and upheld a penalty and customs duty demand of Rs. 83 lakh.

The Court explained that the appellant, as the IEC holder, had a duty to ensure it was not misused. The court dismissed the appeal, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

THE KALIKA KRUPA vs THESTATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 485

The Karnataka High Court in a challenge against the 12 % Forest Development Tax on forest products, directed the parties to follow the ruling of the apex court, which is pending now. The bench stated that the matter will be decided according to the final decision of the Supreme Court.

The court held that the respondents would be at liberty to take further action only after disposal of the said matters by issuing a fresh demand for tax or taking action so far as the petitioner is concerned, wherever the FDT is already collected by the respondents. To read the full text of the Order, CLICK HERE

YOGESH vs STATE OF DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 486

The Karnataka High Court held that the allegation of illegal gratification under section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with uncorroborated evidence, is not conclusive.

The bench set aside the conviction order, and the bail bonds are cancelled, and sureties stand discharged.

Non Filing of GST Appeal due to Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Kerala HC allows to file Appeal in 30 Days of Constitution of Tribunal

JOJI MATHAI CHERIAN vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 487

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court allowed the assessee to file an appeal within 30 days of the constitution of the tribunal. It was found that the non-filing of Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal was due to the non-constitution of the GST Appeal Tribunal.

The court also held that “further proceedings for recovery pursuant to the order shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal as directed above is disposed of. Needless to mention, if the petitioner fails to prefer the appeal within the time limit specified above or deposit the amount under Section 112(8)(b) as directed in this judgment, the benefit of this order will not be available.”

M/S AKSHAR PRECISION TUBES PVT. LTD. & ANR. vsCOMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CE VADODARA II CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 488

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court quashed an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST for disregarding specific remand directions issued by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000 on the respondent authority for violating judicial propriety.

The court held that the Commissioner’s actions were without jurisdiction and contrary to the judicial hierarchy. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be reassigned to another officer for fresh adjudication strictly in line with CESTAT’s remand within 12 weeks. The writ petition was allowed.

HVR SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED VS SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS IIAVATO WARD 67 & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 489

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, in accordance with proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an assessee cannot be heard before a judgment rejecting their rectification plea is issued.

The court set aside the order in the rectification application with a direction to the department to decide it afresh after affording a hearing to the petitioner.

C.Y CHERIAN vs STATE OFKERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 490

The Kerala High Court has ruled that, lacking amnesty plans, the full amount of taxes must be paid after they have been assessed. According to Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas‘ bench, the petitioner even cooperated with the ruling by making the first installment payment. He later changed his mind, though, and requested that a portion of the money be accepted in order to cover the entire amount of the tax claimed. There is no comparable procedure in the legal field.

The court decided that as the petitioner had not used any statutory remedies, the assessment ruling was final. Therefore, using Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is inappropriate.

INDIAN MEDICALASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 491

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the levy of Goods and Service Tax (GST) on services and mutual benefit schemes rendered by the Kerala State Branch of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) to its members, permitting its imposition prospectively from January 1, 2022.

Since the 2021 Amendment became operational only on January 1, 2022, the Kerala High Court held that the applicability of GST on services and mutual benefit schemes provided by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) only from January 1, 2022 and not from any date before it.

ED & F ManCommodities India Pvt. Ltd. vs TheAssistant Commissioner, State Tax & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 492

In a recent judgement, Calcutta High Court upheld the cancellation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner because of the non-existence of business.

The bench observed that the verification report, submitted per the court’s direction, confirmed that the premises were non-operational. The petitioner’s photographic evidence was also termed to be unconvincing. Thus, the Court upheld the cancellation of registration and dismissed the writ petition.

M/S FORTIOUSINFRADEVELOPERS LLP vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ZONE)-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 493

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the value of land under a works contract under Composition Scheme Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT), 2005 is not subject to VAT.

While allowing the appeal, the bench held that “different contracts are signed for the sale of an undivided portion of land and a works contract.” Because they constitute the entire consideration for the works contract, the Act contemplates that the previous agreement for the sale of property would not be a subject matter of the tax and that only the total arrangement of works contracts would be considered.

Subrat Kumar Behera vsState of Odisha & Anr CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 494

In The High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack Subrat Kumar Behera , the Petitioner has challenged the levy of Motor Vehicle Tax and additional Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09-G-1268(Tipper) for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 which is claimed to be arrears, as has been uploaded in the Webportal of the Transport Department without calling for any reply/explanation.

It was also observed that payment of outstanding Motor Vehicle Tax as well as additional Motor Vehicle Tax shall be accepted by the Opposite Parties and the application to be filed by the Petitioner for issuance of permit and fitness certificate in respect of the above noted vehicle shall be considered in accordance with law.

ANJANI GOLD PRIVATELIMITED & ANR vs INCOME TAXOFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 495

The Calcutta High Court upheld the transfer order passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was passed 8 years ago. The bench held that the jurisdiction be retained within Kolkata on account of the long lapse of time and the specific written instruction given by the department.

In the light of the above reasoning given by the Single Bench, the current division bench held that the jurisdiction be retained within Kolkata on account of the long lapse of time and the specific written instruction given by the department.

M/S GOLD KING FASHIONJEWELLERY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 496

In a recent petition, which is against an order passed under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST), 2017 , the Kerala High Court directed the petitioner to approach the second appellate authority, ie, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority (GSTAT), considering the brink of constitution.

It was further held that “If the said amount has not already been paid, petitioner is given 30 days time from today to pay the said amount. If the said amount has already been paid, credit shall be given to that. All coercive proceedings for recovery pursuant to the order shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal as directed above is disposed of, provided the amount as contemplated under Section 112(8)(b) of the Act is paid.”

M/S TABASCO HINDUSTANINFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vsTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXAND CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 497

The High Court of Kerala, dismissed a writ petition challenging a Goods and Service Tax (GST) penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax(CGST) Act, citing delay and absence of any jurisdictional error.

A single member bench of Bechu Kurian Thomas(Judge) also observed that the petitioner had accepted the order by paying the tax and chose not to file an appeal within the time allowed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. So, there was no reason to interfere under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed.

Ranjeet Kumar Poddar vsSuperintendent, Range-I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 498

The Calcutta High Court directed to apply for revocation under section 30 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, against the cancellation of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) made without giving an opportunity to respond to the same.

Further held that “ If such application is filed within a period of two weeks from date, the authorities shall, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case hear out and dispose of such application on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of such application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order.”

WILHELMSEN PORTSERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. vsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 499

The Calcutta High Court stayed the Goods and Services Tax demand against the wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Interstate Goods and Service Tax (IGST) instead of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST).The bench stayed the demand considering the revenue neutrality.

A division bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) found that there is no revenue loss to the Government and it is revenue neutral. Considering the situation, the court viewed that the orders impugned in the writ petition shall remain stayed till the disposal of the writ petition and the petitioners are exempt from making the payment of 10% of the tax in dispute as ordered by the writ court.

ST ENGINEERINGAEROSPACE ENGINES PTE LTD VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 500

The High Court of Delhi quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 , against the petitioner, a Singapore-based entity, due to improper service.

The court decided to send the matter back to the stage of considering the notice under section 148A(b). It quashed the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148, allowing the petitioner three weeks to file a response. The AO would proceed with the case according to the law after receiving the response. In short, the writ petition was disposed of.