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

Baskar Vincent vsDirector of Municipal Administration,Chennai CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 600

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 75,000 on a taxpayer for misusing the public interest litigation (PIL) route to challenge the property tax revision implemented by the Kodaikanal Municipality and attempting to block the lawful process of property tax enhancement applicable to his own property.

Finding the petition to be a gross abuse of legal process, the court dismissed the writ petition and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Kodaikanal Municipality. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

The Official LiquidatorVS Savannah Lifestyle PrivateLimited. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 601

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court held that mere delay in filing applications for recall or review cannot be a reason for rejecting petition on the technical ground of delay.

The court viewed that the order passed by the Court on 21 October 2022 on the basis of Minutes of Order dated 20 October 2022 deserves to be recalled both in application filed by the Bank as well as in the Review Petitions filed by Shaila Clubs and its suspended director.

XYZ vs CENTRALINFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 602

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Information Commissioner ( CIC ) to reconsider the RTI plea of a Chartered Accountant ( CA ) with regards to the inclusion of his name in the ‘Undesirable Contact Men’ ( UCM ) List of Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ) considering human rights of the petitioner.

The court observed that the CIC had failed to consider this aspect in its order and therefore remanded the matter to the CIC for fresh adjudication on whether the information sought falls within the exception under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX EXEMPTION DELHI VS IILMFOUNDATION CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 603

The Delhi High Court held that no income tax is payable on the reasonable salary paid to the Chairperson of a Charitable Educational Trust, ruling that such payment does not violate provisions under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court explained that the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied solely because the Chairperson is a related party, provided the remuneration is fair and corresponds to the services rendered. The appeals were dismissed.

MS STESALIT LIMITED& ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 604

In a pending writ petition, the Delhi High Court is examining whether Roof Mounted Package Unit (RMPU) air conditioning machines, specifically manufactured for Indian Railways, should be classified under HSN 8415 (attracting 28% GST) or HSN 8607 (attracting 18% GST applicable to railway parts).

The Court has permitted the adjudication proceedings to continue but directed that any final order passed shall not be given effect without the leave of the Court. The court directed the adjudicating authorities to consider the petitioner’s reply, the Advance Rulings, and the impugned circular during adjudication. The matter is next listed for hearing on 9th May 2025.

Technova ImagingSystems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 605

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that an amalgamated company can adjust the written down value (WDV) of assets acquired from its amalgamating companies and claim depreciation on such adjusted value without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench referred to the reasoning in EID Parry (India) Ltd., which clearly distinguished between carry forward of losses and the adoption of correct WDV post-amalgamation. The court quashed the ITAT’s order and restored the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had allowed the appellant’s claim.

M/s. Axiom Gen NxtIndia Private Limited vs Commercial State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 606

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court directed the GST authorities to send reminders through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) if taxpayers fail to respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal.

The court set aside the assessment orders in multiple petitions, including the one filed by Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited. The court directed the petitioners to deposit a percentage of the disputed tax amount as a condition for setting aside the orders. The court also directed the GST authorities to reassess the matters afresh after giving proper notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Ganesh Prasad Singh vsThe Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 607

The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), in line with supreme court order.

Accordingly, the bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma, granted the anticipatory bail application according to the decision of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal judgment and directed the trial court to adhere strictly to the guidelines laid down in the said ruling.

M/S HIMESH FOODS PVT.LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 608

The Karnataka High Court is set to decide an important case about how GST (Goods and Services Tax) should be charged on donuts, cakes, and other bakery products. The court granted interim relief to Mad Over Donuts.

The final decision could help clear up confusion about how GST should be applied to food items sold in different ways across India. This case and the related one being heard at the Bombay High Court (next hearing on April 28, 2025) could set an important example for how tax rules will be applied in the future for food and bakery businesses.

SANDEEP SANDHA vs THEJOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(EXPORTS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 609

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a customs adjudication order and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962 in the case involving claims of delay in adjudication and procedural lapse.

The Court granted the petitioner an extended period of 30 days to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

M/S PERFETTI VAN MELLEINDIA PVT LTD vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 610

The Delhi High Court set aside an Order-in-Original raising a GST demand of Rs. 10.86 crores on the ground that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner’s timely and detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN).

The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits and all contentions were left open. The adjudicating authority has been directed to conclude the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed.

M/S IMPRESSIVE DATASERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), CENTRAL TAX GST, DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 611

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Impressive Data Services Pvt. Ltd., which sought exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), citing financial hardship and pending government receivables.

The court noted that Rs. 20 lakhs already lay with the Department out of the Rs. 64 lakhs total demanded. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to approach the appellate authority for any appropriate relief.

ROCKTEK INFRA SERVICESPVT. LTD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 612

The Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to reduce the bank guarantee required for provisional release of seized goods from 130% to 30% of the differential duty in the matter challenging the harsh conditions imposed for release of imported self-drilling bars.

The court directed to release the seized goods within ten days of furnishing the modified bond and bank guarantee. The writ petition was disposed of.

M/S AIMS RETAILSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA& ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 613

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that SIM Insertion to mobile phones to unlock the regional setting is ‘configuration’ not usage under the Duty drawback Rules and ordered the customs department to process the duty drawback. The court also quashed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs’ ( CBIC) clarification.

However, if the drawbacks are not released within the said period, the Customs Department shall be liable to pay interest on the eligible duty drawback amounts to the respective Petitioners, in accordance with law, from the date of expiry of the three-month period. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Gourav Jain vs Union OfIndia And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 614

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the accused in a major GST (Goods and Services Tax) fraud case involving the alleged passing of fake Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The court granted regular bail furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is further directed that the accused-applicant shall also abide by terms and conditions of the bail, which shall be imposed by the trial Court at the time of acceptance of his bail bonds and surety.

Ankit Agarwal vs ThePrincipal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax Bihar and Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 615

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court quashed the income tax demand raised through reassessment proceedings which was completely based on incorrect information from the insight portal that the petitioner did not file the income tax return.

It viewed that “the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was based on incorrect information furnished in the notice under section 148(A) (b) which was not supported by any material, therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding by issuing section 148 notice on 06.04.2022 would stand vitiated.” Accordingly the income tax demand was quashed by the court.

Vineet Kumar Dhattarwalvs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 616

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court allowed the bail application of a Customs Superintendent who had been arrested in connection with an alleged demand for a ₹5 lakh bribe to release a shipment at JNPT Port (Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, now officially known as Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority or JNPA).

Therefore the Bombay High Court proceeded to allow the bail application, directing that the Applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties of like amount.

BHAVNA LUTHRA L/H OFSH. NARAIN DAs LUTHRA vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 618

The Delhi High Court directed the physical appearance of the Assistant GST Commissioner concerning over the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the Department.

The Department submitted that the essential documents supporting the factum of death of the Petitioner’s husband were not placed along with the application for the refund. Petitioner on the other hand contended that the death of her husband already stands proved vide the order of cancellation of GST registration of his firm. The Court asked the Assistant Commissioner concerned to physically appear before it on the next date, i.e. May 05.

RAJBIR SINGH VS UNIONOF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 619

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to avail remedy under the customs Act, 1961and also pointed the issue of misuse of duty drawback scheme by Various exporters .

The Petitioner is also permitted to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court in this proceeding shall not have any bearing on the adjudication before the Appellate Authority and it shall adjudicate the same in accordance with law. At this point, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the statement made by the Petitioner before the DRI has been relied upon in the impugned OIO, but the same was extracted out of duress and coercion.

HARIS ASLAM vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 620

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot overrule an appellate body’s order compelling it to release an assessee’s goods on the sole pretext that it wishes to request a modification to the order.

The clarification was provided in a petition submitted by a UAE resident whose gold chain and ring were seized by the Department upon their arrival in India. Furthermore, the High Court ordered the Department to release the Petitioner’s jewelry in view of the Commissioner’s order, which hasn’t been stayed yet.

M/S L-1 IDENTITYSOLUTIONS OPERATING COMPANY PRIVATELIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 621

The Delhi High Court has held that to reach the ₹50 lakh threshold set forth in Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for starting a reassessment action after three years, an Assessing Officer is not permitted to include income that purportedly eluded assessment in several prior years.

The bench concluded that no single incident or occurrence had caused the revenue from more than one prior year to surpass ₹50 lakhs. According to the aforementioned, the Assessee is accused of undercharging its AE for the R&D services it provided; as a result, ₹27 lakhs in income must be corrected. Furthermore, it is claimed that the Assessee overpaid by ₹21 lakhs for specific managerial and group-related services. It is not possible to claim that any of these two changes was a part of a single event or occasion that occurred over more than one year ago. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned notices and all proceedings.

Indian Bank vs TheCommercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 622

The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that due to the fact that Section 34 of the RDB Act is merely a general provision, Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favor of the Financial Institution when compared to Section 34 of the RDB Act.

SUKHBIR S. DAGAR vsINCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 623

The Delhi High Court ruled that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is not authorized to authorize the start of a reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1957.

According to the division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia, neither the CIT nor the CCIT gave their consent. The JCIT, not the CCIT or CIT, approved the notification issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is obvious that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was illegal because it violated Section 151(1) of the Act.

VEDANTA LIMITED vsCENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 624

The Delhi High Court has recently held that an order rejecting the benefit of duty drawback of clean energy cess must spell out reasons for the same and the order cannot be a simply cryptic one.

Thus, the Court stated that CBIC, drawback division, ought to have looked into the matter to pass a reasoned order on the representations of the Petitioner while considering the purpose and the rationale behind issuance of the said Instruction No. 4/2019 dated 11th October 2019. The present Writ Petition was directed to be treated as a valid representation of the Petitioner and the CBIC, drawback division was ordered to pass a reasoned order within three months. Hence, the Writ Petition was allowed and all remedies of the Petitioner were left open in accordance with law.

M/S TASTY NUTINDUSTRIES vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 625

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) can be treated as a customs bonded warehouse under the Customs Act, allowing re-processing of imported cashew kernels within its factory premises without violating customs regulations.

The Court clarified that the petitioner must maintain detailed accounts of raw materials, processed products, and waste generated, to satisfy customs inspections and audits. The writ petition was allowed.

M/S BRIJBIHARI CONCASTPVT. LTD. vs DIRECTORATE GENERAL OFGOODS AND SERVICES TAXINTELLIGENCE MEERURT ZONAL UNIT & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 626

The Delhi High Court has permitted the petitioner to operate a bank account, subject to maintaining a minimum balance of Rs. 1.5 crores, in the matter involving allegations of Rs. 15.09 crores GST evasion.

The Court directed that a minimum balance of Rs. 1.5 crores be maintained in the attached bank account, while allowing its operation for all other purposes. The Court restrained the creation of third-party interests in a specified immovable property till final adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, with all pending applications also closed.

M/S. VALLABH TEXTILESvs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRALTAX GST, DELHI EAST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 627

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Rs. 7.13 crore GST demand, ruling that the taxpayer must pursue appellate remedies under the CGST Act rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and directed that any appeal so filed would not be dismissed on grounds of limitation. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

DALVINDER SINGH SUDANvs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 628

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has directed the customs department to release detained Gold Kada of 60 gm worn by a Sikh man as the Gold Kada is merely a personal effect of the Petitioner.

Considering the fact that the gold kada seized is merely a personal effect of the Petitioner, the court held that the detention itself would be contrary to law. Further held that “The Petitioner shall be entitled to release of the gold kada within a period of four weeks from today subject to payment of warehouse charges.”

M/s Hari ShankerTransport vs Commissioner of CommercialTax U.P. Lucknow CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 629

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017’s Section 75(6) requires that an order be self-contained; merely citing earlier show-cause notifications is insufficient.

The bench set aside the impugned order and the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Sonbhadra was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then decide in accordance with law.

Macrotech DevelopersLimited vs Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 630

The Bombay High Court ruled that the petitioner had not given all relevant information required for the tax assessment and that the roundabout transfer of money through different businesses situated in tax havens had not been revealed during the initial proceedings. The court confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

The Bench found that the money is received by the Petitioner through the layering of various offshore entities, and based on the intelligence available, these tax haven entities have an intimate connection with the Petitioner and its Director, and undisclosed funds have been routed by the Petitioner itself through layering via various offshore entities in tax haven countries. The court dismissed the petition and upheld the reassessment.

ALD Automotive PrivateLimited vs Sales Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 631

In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court directed a fresh adjudication of issues related to the disallowance of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act (WB VAT). The Court observed inconsistencies in the treatment and verification of documents, particularly the original tax invoice and related records, thus ordered to verify the documents.

The Court directed the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board verification to re-examine the issues afresh, taking into account all submissions and documents, and to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Shivananda Ray vsPrincipal Commissioner CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 632

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court ruled that individual lawyers are exempt from the levy of service tax and GST on income derived from legal services.

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notices were set aside to the extent they relate to the petitioner’s professional income as a lawyer.

The Principal ChiefCommissioner of GST and Central Excisevs Deepa Traders CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 633

The Madras High Court held that clerical errors must be rectifiable even beyond statutory timelines. Further held that denial of ITC to buyers for no fault of theirs results in double taxation and software limitations are not a justifiable ground to deny rectification.

While allowing the appeal, the Court K.R.Shriram, Chief Justice and.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that the errors, especially clerical ones are normal and inevitable. Denial of ITC to the purchaser for such errors leads to double taxation. Right to correct mistakes is a natural extension of the right to do business. The GST portal’s inability to permit corrections is not a ground to deny relief. Software should enable compliance, not create hurdles.

Sri. Vattikuti. Abbaiahvs The State of Telangana CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 634

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court held that used vehicles brought into the state for permanent use are liable to pay life tax, even if the vehicle had already been taxed in another state.

The court explained that the TSMVT Act operates independently of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the tax liability imposed by Telangana was lawful. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

PIONEER COOPERATIVE CARPARKING SERVICING AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LIMITED vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL ANDANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 635

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that GSTR-9 annual returns must be considered for input tax credit (ITC) claims, even when such credit is not reflected in the monthly return filed in GSTR-3B.

The court set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue for fresh adjudication, directing that the GSTR-9 return and related documentation be given due consideration. The writ petition was allowed.

M/S NationalFertilizers Limited vs The Principal Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 636

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, dismissing an appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The matter has now been remanded for fresh consideration.

The bench concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the direction that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass a fresh order after granting both sides a full opportunity to be heard. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Bhatia, wherein Sri R. Krishnan, assisted by Sri Veer Bahadur Lal Srivastav and Shri Vinay Singh, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Dipak Seth represented the respondents.

M/S Integra MicroSystems Private Limited Lko. Thru. vsState Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ofState Tax Lko. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 637

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand of Rs. 2.11 crores which was issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST Act ), 2017 on grounds of lack of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing.

Considering the fact that the original order is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also violative of principles of natural justice, the order dated 25.03.2023 was quashed by the bench. However, the matter was remanded back to the concerned authorities to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with law.

ADM AGRO INDUSTRIESPRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 638

The Delhi High Court sets aside notice under section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961, considering its bar by limitation. The bench viewed that the import of the order is not to obliterate the timelines stipulated for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act.

The matter een remanded to the AO for a fresh consideration in light of the challenge raised by the petitioner. The import of the said order dated 06.12.2022 was not to foreclose any right or contention of the parties. The court set aside the order dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 01.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act.

M/S Xestion Advisor PrivateLimited vs AdditionalCommissioner Grade II CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 639

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the GST assessment and appellate orders issued against a company after finding that the assessment order under Section 62 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act) was passed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 46.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the tax authority on the next date fixed so that the proceedings can be concluded expeditiously. The Court also clarified that any amount deposited during the pendency of the case will remain subject to the outcome of the fresh proceedings.

SPARKIN SUNLIT PRIVATELIMITED vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODSAND SERVICE TAX AND ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 640

The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to rehear the show cause notice ( SCN )which was uploaded improperly in ‘additional notices tab’. The court also directed to uploaded the SCN on the Portal in a proper manner and shall also be emailed to the Petitioner on the following email address: sunlitsparkin@gmail.com.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta found that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN, the Court found that the Petitioner ought to be allowed to file a reply. Let the reply to the SCN be now filed within a period of 30 days. The adjudicating authority shall proceed and pass order with respect to the SCN after affording a hearing to the Petitioner. The hearing notice shall be uploaded on the Portal in a proper manner and shall also be emailed to the Petitioner on the following email address: sunlitsparkin@gmail.com. The court set aside the order..

THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs SPRINGER NATURECUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE GMBH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 641

The Delhi High Court in its recent judgement held that the subscription fee collected for e-magazine Content does not fall under ‘Fee for Technical Service’ under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Further viewed that mere access to technical databases or technical literature would not constitute provision of technical services. The sale of technical texts, information or research material collated by extensive research would not constitute rendering technical services within the scope of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs AMOL AWASTHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 642

The Delhi High Court in its judgement upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT)’s Order finding the AO’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid. The bench found that AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23.

Concededly, AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23. The court upheld the view of ITAT in finding that the AO’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid.

M/s Shrinivasa RealconPrivate Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Anti Evasion Branch CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 643

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) ruled that GST is not applicable under Entry 5B of the GST Notification dated 28.06.2017, as amended, unless there is a transfer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI).

The court held that the transaction in question did not fall under the ambit of Entry 5B and could not attract GST liability. The show cause notice dated 14.08.2023 and the corresponding order dated 10.12.2024 were quashed. The writ petition was allowed, providing a clear precedent that GST is not applicable in development agreements lacking a transfer of TDR or FSI.

ASHISH SINGHALPROPRIETOR APN TRADING CO vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 644

The Delhi High Court, in the petition challenging the validity of the notification issued by the Central Board ofIndirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) under Section 168A of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act directed the adjudication authority to pass order subject to the decision of the Supreme Court.

However, the division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta explicitly stated that any order passed by the adjudicating authority would remain “subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.”

GURUDAS MALLIK THAKURvs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 645

The Delhi High Court, in a matter where a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand was raised against Former Directors, ordered the GST department to set up the mechanism to file an appeal. It was ruled that the non-taxable persons can appeal and directed that the appeal shall not be dismissed on ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.

It was directed to the Department to communicate to the Petitioners within two weeks the mechanism in which they can avail of their appellate remedies. Upon receiving the intimation, the Petitioners shall file the appeal within 30 days.

Expiry of Limitation for passing GST Assessment Order cannot be reason for Denial of Hearing: Allahabad HC

ROOTS EDUCATION PVT LTDvs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 646

The Delhi High Court has quashed two orders and five show cause notices (SCNs) citing gross and unexplained delays in the adjudication process, which spanned between six to eleven years.

In addition, it was noted that for the first four impugned SCNs, a personal hearing was conducted as early as 27 December 2016, and the petitioner submitted a clarificatory written response on 30 December 2016. Despite these steps, no final order was passed, and the adjudication process remained stalled for another 7.5 years without any justified reason, a delay the Court found wholly unjustifiable. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned Order-in-Appeal, Order-in-Original, and the five SCNs.

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -7 vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 647

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that income from securities held by banks such securities are to be treated as stock-in-trade. So, the income derived from them should be assessed under the head “Profits and Gains of Business,” not as investment returns.

The court dismissed the appeal. The court directed that the parties would be bound by the outcome of any pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the earlier decisions, but reaffirmed its current position in favour of the assessee.

M/S MONTAGE ENTERPRISESPRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL GOODSAND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 648

In a recent ruling involving a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) fraud billing a bogus bill of Rs. 550 cores, the Delhi High Court declined to hear the petition. It ordered the petitioner to move the appellate forum for relief as the present case does not suit the writ jurisdiction.

The Court stated that the court’s observations would not prejudice the appellate proceedings, and disposed of the petition and pending applications accordingly.

VIJAY AND COMPANYTHROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS SEEMA TAYALvs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICETAX AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 649

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld a Rs. 35 lakh GST demand raised against Vijay and Company, rejecting the petitioner’s plea to quash the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act. The court relied on the DRC-06 forms as conclusive evidence that the taxpayer had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the show cause notice but failed to do so.

The writ petition was dismissed, but the court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within thirty days. The court directed that the appeal, if filed along with the requisite pre-deposit, should be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on the ground of limitation.

SMART CHIP PRIVATELIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 650

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that the 10-year reassessment window allowed under the proviso to Section 153A(1) was inapplicable as the escaped income was not represented in the form of an asset, as required by law.

The writ petition was allowed, and the court clarified that the reassessment notice lacked legal validity due to non-fulfilment of statutory conditions for extended limitation.