EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 701

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court acknowledged a degree of procedural laxity on Exide Industries’ part in responding to hearing notices and imposed Rs. 1 Lakh cost while remanding the matter for fresh hearing.

The court also clarified that the period of limitation under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, would not apply in this case, owing to the company’s earlier delays. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with directions for a new hearing.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (DGGI) vsYOGESHKUMAR GUPTA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 702

The Delhi High Court allowed the bail and refused to allow the rearrest of the accused, alleged to have made a fake /bogus availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The Court believed that significant time had elapsed since the issuance of the impugned order. Therefore, in light of the developments noted above, it is not warranted to curtail the Respondent’s liberty by ordering his re-arrest.

SAROJ MEHNDI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 703

In a recent ruling the High Court of Delhi,set aside the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 23.06.2021 was beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The issue was already settled in favour of the petitioner in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO. The court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings.

R.C. JEWELLERS PVT.LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 704

The Delhi High Court, ruled that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961,could not be initiated in the absence of incriminating material.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia set aside the impugned notices, order, and all related proceedings, and disposed of the pending applications, allowing the petition.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs M/S WRIGLEY INDIAPVT.LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 705

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling,upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, stating that Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion(AMP) expenses are not a separate international transaction.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia had also taken the same view in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010–11, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by relying on Maruti Suzuki.

FIITJEE FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAININGSvsCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 706

The Delhi High Court,directed the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] to condone the 30-day delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year(AY) 2022-23, following the assessee’s explanation that the delay was due to medical issues in the accountant’s family.

The Court also referred toSection 119(2)(b) of the Act, which allows for the condonation of delays in cases of genuine hardship. It noted that the Bombay High Court had emphasized a liberal interpretation of “genuine hardship” in similar cases. The bench concluded that the delay was not due to negligence.

Tvl. Parasakthi Transport vs The Appellate DeputyCommissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 707

The High Court of Madras, condoned a 7-day delay in the filing of a Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal, which was caused by the assessee’s lack of GST knowledge, portal access, and reliance on an auditor who failed to inform about the assessment proceedings

It condoned the 7-day delay and allowed the writ petition. The appellate authority’s order was set aside, and the Court directed the first respondent to consider the appeal on merits after giving the petitioner an hearing opportunity.

M/S KESHAV METALS vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS ANDSERVICES TAX AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 708

In a recent ruling,the Delhi High Court,set aside an order passed against assessee, noting that the show cause notice (SCN) had been uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab without proper intimation or an opportunity for the petitioner to respond.

The division bench of Prathiba M.Singh (Judge) and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta (Judge) also noted that changes had been made to the portal after 16th January 2024 to make SCNs more visible. Despite the SCN being from May 2024, since the petitioner hadn’t been given a chance to respond or attend a hearing, the impugned order was set aside.

M/s. Pearl Beverages Ltd. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 709

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the soft drinks manufacturers under the brand name of Pepsi are eligible for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on refrigerators, coolers, and freezers.

The court ruled that the revision petitioner’s payment was refundable up to the input tax credit amount for the refrigerators and coolers. The remainder of the claim is denied, but the revision petitioner is eligible for the input tax credit for the coolers and refrigerators.

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shankar Lall Goenka CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 710

In a recent ruling , the Gauhati High Court sets aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Order passed Ignoring Provisions of S. 292B of Income Tax Act

While allowing the appeal, the court set aside the matter and remanded it to the ITAT for deciding the appeal preferred by the assessee afresh on other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal preferred before it.

Ashokkumar V The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 711

The Madras High Court has ordered the department to make changes in the architecture of the GST ( Goods and Services tax ) portal to enable the petitioner to file pending GST returns and regularize after the GST registration was cancelled due to reliance on the advice of an auditor on the threshold limit.

However, the Court laid down certain conditions: it should be paid off without any unverified Input Tax Credit (ITC) and any unused ITC should be examined and sanctioned by the department before its future utilization.

RANJIT DUTTA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 712

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court reiterated that the issuance of a Summary of Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) under Form GST DRC-01 cannot be a substitute for a formal SCN as required under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.

Relying on a precedent, the High Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the summary of show cause notice and the summary of order.

The Principal Chief Commissioner vs Union of India CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 713

In a case related to the transitional filing of TRAN-1 forms under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, the Madras High Court dismissed as infructuous a departmental appeal against a prior single-judge order that had allowed the assessee to file the TRAN-1 form.

The bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jyothiraman observed that no substantive dispute remained for adjudication and dismissed the departmental appeal as infructuous.

A J Power Center vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 714

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department to consider a taxpayer’s representation seeking unblocking of their Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ) under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, after input tax credit ( ITC ) was blocked on allegations that the petitioner had availed credit from non-existent dealers.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy heard the counsel for writ petitioner submission that it will suffice if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 13.03.2025

M/s.Vrishti Mercantile vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 715

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed a taxpayer to seek statutory remedy by filing a revocation application after the cancellation of their GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration on allegations of suspicious transactions reflected in the petitioner’s bank records and documents uploaded on the GST portal.

Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a directive that the petitioner will make a revocation application along with the supporting documentation.

S.P.Forms vs Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 716

The Madras High Court has warned the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department against the mechanical issuance of ex-parte orders without ensuring effective service of notice upon taxpayers.

The court Considering the petitioner’s readiness to pay part of the tax and to contest the matter on merits, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the department on condition to pay 25% of disputed amount.

P Murugan vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 717

The Madras High Court directed the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Department to resolve within five weeks the issue of blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) of a taxpayer accused of dealing with fake invoices.

The Bench directed the department to provide a seven-day clear notice fixing a date for personal hearing and to consider the petitioner’s documentary evidence.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs QUIPPO TELECOMINFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 718

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the notice issued does not clearly specify the ground, whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The High Court noted that the assessee had made full disclosure of all the pertinent details and that the rejection of its claim was due to conflicting interpretations and not any intent to conceal.

ANKUR AGARWAL vs CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES ANDCUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 719

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling, has allowed the filing of undertakings on the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) portal for recredit of substantial Input Tax Credit (ITC) via PMT-03.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta instructed the petitioner to meet with the concerned officer at the GSTN office on May 14, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. The court further held that the petitioner’s representative may visit the GST office, and the concerned GST officer will provide the petitioner with any necessary help in uploading the PMT-03 forms.

M/s Himalaya Wellness Company vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 720

In a major ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed the plea by the Himalaya Wellness Company challenging a 15 pages show cause notice (SCN) demanding inadmissible GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs. 4.37 crores.

The court observed that the department had issued the petitioner with a comprehensive 15-page show cause notice that included enough information about how it had reached its judgment to warrant the petitioner’s show cause notice.

M/s.Shalu Cabs vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 721

In case of the accountant’s failure to inform the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) proceedings which led to the ex-parte order, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court has directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

M/s. Sri Ram Stone Works vs State of Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 722

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a concessional sale price cannot be regarded as a sham transaction and invalidated the Goods and Service Tax (GST) notice.

The court clarified that the notices contain certain overlapping data about alleged discrepancies in the returns of different writ petitioners. The Assessing Officer may issue new notifications regarding inconsistencies in the returns, if any, pertaining to specific writ petitioners; we will not comment on the aforementioned disparity as stated in the notices vis-à-vis returns.

M/s.Ramakrishnan Chettiar Ravisheker & The AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 723

In a recent ruling, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority instead.

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh relying on the precedent, the Court dismissed the current petitions while granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within one month.

Tvl. Priya Woods Craft vs The Commissioner of CommercialTaxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 724

The Madras High Court has held that the 60-day time limit prescribed under Section 62(2) of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, 2017, for furnishing returns after a best judgment assessment is not mandatory but directory in nature.

Since the petitioner had not filed any formal application for condonation of delay, the Court directed him to file such an application within 15 days. The assessing officer was instructed to consider the same on merits and, if satisfied, allow the petitioner to file revised returns after fulfilling statutory liabilities like interest and penalty.

M/s.Agni Estate Foundations Private Ltd. vs The State TaxOfficer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 725

The Madras High Court held that where no specific allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement, or fraud is made in a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, such a notice cannot be sustained under that provision.

The court recognized the government counsel’s submission that the case could be reconsidered and held it proper to order that the challenged notices and orders should be treated as those issued under Section 73, thus upholding the petitioner’s right to avail amnesty benefits. Accordingly the petition was disposed of.

Ashok International vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Gst CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 726

The Madras High Court quashed demand notices issued for denial of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) on account of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns due to covid, citing the retrospective amendment made to Section 16 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act.

It also directed that any amounts debited from the petitioners’ credit or cash ledgers be refunded or allowed to be adjusted against future tax liabilities. However, the Court clarified that the department would be at liberty to proceed against assessees for other issues such as incorrect or fraudulent ITC claims, if any, as per law.

Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Circle 16(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 727

The Bombay High Court, quashed the rejection of an excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) refund claimed under the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty and directed the tax authorities to take a final decision within eight weeks.

The bench determined that a writ of mandamus could not be issued based solely on the 29 November 2018 communication. It quashed the 16 June 2022 communication, confirmed that the 29 November 2018 communication could not be treated as a final refund decision, and directed the first Respondent to make a final decision on the refund within eight weeks, after hearing the Petitioner.

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD vs Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 728

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court remanded a group of income tax appeals filed by Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for a fresh factual determination on whether payments made by the company to Intelsat Corporation for transponder services qualify as “royalty” under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The High Court clarified that both parties are free to raise all legal and factual contentions before the CIT(A), who was directed to dispose of the matter by December 31, 2025. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

MUKESH GUPTA @ MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 729

The Delhi High Court highlighted the “overflowing dockets” due to a shortage of judges and comprehensive reform in judicial staffing as the court admitted that it is “unable to decide” appeals within a reasonable timeframe.

A single bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that “On account of the acute shortage of judges as compared to the general population and the litigation quantum, for past long time, the list of regular matters does not reach till end of the day of hearing.

Rishi Shangari vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 730

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that GST dues of a deceased person cannot be recovered from a legal heir unless there is concrete evidence showing continuation of the business by the heir after the death of the original proprietor.

The court ruled that the Assistant Commissioner of CGST order was perverse, unsupported by evidence, hence unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

M/S MAHESH FABRINOX PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 731

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court pointed out a growing trend of businesses involved in GST fraud invoking writ jurisdiction to avoid penalty proceedings. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for misusing the legal process and attempting to bypass statutory remedies.

The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks. The court clarified that the petitioner was free to pursue any alternative remedies available under the law, including filing an appeal.

Sadanand Prasad Barnwal vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 732

In a recent case, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed the summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 as it was found to be issued without the officer’s digital signature.

The court overturned the order and the procedures, and the department was given the liberty to start over if the law allowed it.

Prakash Rao Ravinuthala and Others vs The State Of AndhraPradesh and Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 733

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed the examination of the alleged GST evader in the presence of an advocate and barred the detention beyond office hours.

The court ruled that the examination be held between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm during business hours, and that the petitioners would not be held after that time.

ARUN KUMAR JINDAL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 734

The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cannot be rendered helpless under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires the CBI to obtain prior sanction and refused to grant bail to a Northern Railway Officer who is accused under the PC Act.

Despite receiving a notification, the petitioner’s son unquestionably failed to give the CBI the key to the bank locker. Preliminary evidence also suggested that the petitioner was involved in the other intercepted calls.

THE COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE vs M/SHAAMID REAL ESTATE PVT LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 735

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has directed the Department to file the appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order on service tax for transfer of development rights before the Supreme Court.

In dismissing the appeal from the GST Department, the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta determined that, under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Supreme Court would hear an appeal against the CESTAT ruling

Technova Imaging Systems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 736

The Bombay High Court granted relief to Technova Imaging Systems and allowed the depreciation claim without the approval under Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench observed that no Section 7A approval was needed for a depreciation claim post-amalgamation. The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice M.S. Karnik, allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Raj Kumar Bothra C-101/5 vs Deputy Commissioner Of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 737

In an important ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot disallow ESI/PF contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the pendency of Checkmate Case before Supreme Court.

Therefore, the Court set aside the intimation dated 16.12.2021, the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.07.2024, and the ITAT’s order dated 26.09.2024, restoring the assessee’s claim. The Revenue, however, was given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 143(3) if deemed necessary.

M/s.Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited vs CommercialState Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 738

The Madras High Court set aside the ex parte assessment order passed against the assessee due to ineffective communication through the Goods Service Tax (GST) portal notice service.

The Court criticized the respondents for not using more effective methods, like sending reminders through registered post after the initial notices went unanswered. It concluded that the service, though valid, was ineffective due to the respondents’ failure to explore alternative methods

M/s. Saamy Trading vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 739

The Madras High Court has directed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department to consider and dispose of a rectification application filed by the petitioner rectifying the order passed on the grounds of alleged excess Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claim.

Noting the narrow scope of relief prayed for and without entering into the merits of the case of the petitioner, the High Court ordered the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the application for rectification dated 27.03.2025 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the Court. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.

M/s. Khanna Engineering vs The Commissioner of CT &GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 740

The Orissa High Court recently reaffirmed that all proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) once the arraigned entity voluntarily pays the proposed penalty.

Considering that the penalty was paid, there was no requirement for the authorities to issue a further order in Form GST MOV-09, and the petitioner could not turn around and challenge the detention on technical grounds. Finding no merit in the petition, the Orissa High Court proceeded to dismiss the matter.

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE vs SWARAJINTERNATIONAL & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 741

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that a Magistrate does not have the authority to direct the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to revalue seized goods during the preliminary stage of investigation under the Customs Act.

The court allowed the DRI’s petition and set aside the trial court’s direction for revaluation. But the court permitted the certification of the goods under Section 110(1B) to proceed and directed that such certification be completed within three months. The petition was disposed of.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs Agfa India Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 742

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s ( ITAT ) order quashing reassessment proceedings against Agfa India Pvt. Ltd., for the Assessment Year 2007–08. The High Court held that the reassessment was initiated without the Assessing Officer (AO) having formed an independent belief that income had escaped assessment, as required under the law.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the Revenue’s favour. It upheld the ITAT’s order quashing the reassessment proceedings as legally invalid.

Pantheon Infrastructure Private Limited vs The Union ofIndia CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 743

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the retrospective withdrawal of tax benefits under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. The petitioner, Pantheon Infrastructure Private Limited, had sought relief against the Central Government’s notification dated June 22, 2017, which rescinded an earlier notification that had granted tax exemptions under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Pantheon Infrastructure Private Limited, refusing to interfere with the Central Government’s decision to withdraw the tax exemptions retrospectively.

Tvl.Kolors Healthcare LLP vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 744

The Madras High Court has condoned a 110-day delay in filing Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal citing the ill-health of the petitioner’s Authorized Representative as a genuine reason for the delay and directed the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount to proceed with the appeal.

The Court directed the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on record and pass orders on merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing. The writ petition challenging the assessment order was dismissed, as the matter was to be addressed through the appeal process.

Smt.Santhana Narayanan Kiruthika vs The Assessment UnitIncome Tax Department New Delhi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 745

The Madras High Court has directed the Income Tax department to grant the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing to respond to allegations of fraudulent transactions in which the bank account allegedly misused by the bank manager.

The court set aside the impugned order, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show-cause notice, following which the respondent must provide a personal hearing and pass a fresh order.

AVM HI FI Stationeries vs The Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 746

The Madras High Court has condoned a 90-day delay in filing an appeal against a GST assessment order, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The court ruled that the grounds cited by the petitioner for delay in filing GST appeal was invalid.

The court set aside the rejection order dated 31.01.2025 and directed the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on record upon payment of the additional pre-deposit. The Court directed the authority to pass orders on merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing.

THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATIONLTD. VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 747

The Delhi High Court in a recent case directed the assessee milk federation to correct the details of address mentioned in Goods and Service Tax (GST) Portal, as the GST Show cause notice (scn) issued on wrong address. The court found that the confusion that has been caused by the addresses has ensured that the personal hearing notices have not been served upon the petitioner.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the petitioners to get all their details corrected on the GST portal within 15 days, failing which the department will not be blamed for future notices being sent at the wrong address.

Gurpreet Singh vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 748

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued beyond the period specified under section 149(1) of the Act

The court found that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

M/S. SOPARIWALA EXPORT PVT. LTD. vs JOINT COMMISSIONER,CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 749

The Gujarat High Court has requested that the GST Council determine whether products provided to merchant exporters are subject to the compensatory cess.

The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray stated that since neither the Central Government nor the State Governments have issued notifications under the Compensation Cess Act, the assessee is responsible for paying the compensation cess at the standard rate, which is 160% of the supply of goods to merchant exporters for export.

M/s.Thooya Sahaya Annai Nidhi Limited Union Of India Rep.by The Deputy Director CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 750

The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh reply within two weeks regarding the rejection of its e-Form NDH-4 application, which was passed beyond the 45-day time limit, and directed the second respondent to pass final orders within four weeks, leaving the legal validity of the provisions open.

A single member bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the impugned order and sought a fresh order, considering the additional explanation submitted. The bench allowed the petitioner to submit a new reply within two weeks addressing the issues raised in the order.

PRET STUDY BY JANAK FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 751

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling ,upheld an order confirming the demand of Rs. 34,92,903 for Input Tax Credit (ITC) wrongfully availed by the assessee, due to the failure to file a reply or submit documents.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta found the order appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Since the petitioner had not been diligent in attending hearings, the Department was not at fault.

SANS FRONTIERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,DRAWBACK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 752

The High Court of Delhi, directed Customs to release ₹9.13 lakh in duty drawback to the exporter, stating there was no justification for withholding the amount.

The Division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta following this, held that there was no reason to hold back the duty drawback and directed the authorities to release it within 30 days as per law. It clarified that the payment would be subject to the outcome of the ongoing appeal. The petition was then disposed of.

M/S PERFECT TRADING CO. vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 753

The High Court of Delhi, ordered the provisional release of a consignment of Roasted Areca Nuts imported by the petitioner for industrial use, following conflicting test reports.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta reviewed the reports and found inconsistencies in the testing. Initial reports from CRCL and FSSAI identified the goods as “Roasted Areca Nuts,” but later CRCL reports stated the sample was unfit for human consumption due to moisture, mould, and insect damage.

GARG CANDLE WORKS vs COMMISSIONER, DELHI GST & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 754

The Delhi High Court ruled that Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration cancellation with retrospective effect is invalid if prior cancellation request is filed by assessee.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the GST registration would stand cancelled from 14th May, 2024. It also clarified that any other proceedings linked to the GSTIN would remain unaffected.

EBIXCASH MOBILITY SOFTWARE INDIA LIMITED vs SALES TAXOFFICER CLASS II AVATOWARD 101 ZONE 9 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 755

The Delhi High Court,in a matter concerning reconciliation of Tax Deducted at Source(TDS) deposited under an incorrect Goods and Service Tax Identification Number(GSTIN), set aside the impugned order and granted the petitioner an opportunity to present its case.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 10th June 2025 and submit any additional documents through the portal. These documents would be considered, and a complete adjudication would be made.

M/S DURGA APPARELS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 756

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling, condoned a 1610-day delay in a customs appeal due to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody, health issues, and COVID-19 disruptions.

The bench directed the petitioner to deposit ₹5 lakhs as costs with the department and warned that no unnecessary adjournments should be sought before CESTAT. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal before CESTAT for adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1 vsGENPACT SERVICES LLC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 757

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that not all expenses resulting in an enduring benefit qualify as capital expenditure and dismissed a penalty appeal filed by the Income Tax Department.

The bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that no substantial question of law arose. The court held that vague penalty notices violate principles of natural justice, especially when the underlying claim is legally debatable and factually disclosed in tax filings

WORLD ART PRESS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MS RASHI BANSAL vsCOMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 758

The Delhi High Court recently set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order, observing that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in question had been uploaded solely under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal, unbeknownst to the Petitioner entity.

The Court also clarified that the validity of the impugned notification is left open impending the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled ‘M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors’.

M/S. SHUDH HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED VS GOODS ANDSERVICE TAX OFFICER WARD- 44 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 759

The Delhi High Court recently permitted an aggrieved petitioner to avail of the appellate remedies as enshrined under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 observing procedural lapses that had occurred during the adjudication process.

Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court found that the sequence of events laid prejudice to the purpose of the adjudicatory process and permitted the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – albeit belatedly.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs R.C. SUPPLIERSPRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 760

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department in a case involving the disallowance of ₹71.38 lakh in losses claimed from transactions in penny stock scrips.

Affirming the Tribunal’s reasoning, the High Court concluded that no substantial legal issue was involved and accordingly dismissed both the appeal and the accompanying stay application.

NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. vs Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 761

The Calcutta High Court reiterated a single bench ruling that rejected a plea by NCLT Bar Association contesting the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ proposal to relocate the NCLT Kolkata headquarters from the High Court to a new structure in the New Town neighborhood of the city.

In essence, the writ petition aims to subtly assert a public interest, which is not permitted under the pretense of a personal writ. Furthermore, unless proven to be capricious or malicious, which is not the case here, the location and operation of a tribunal are outside the purview of judicial scrutiny and lie under the purview of executive policy determinations.

SANGEETA GOEL vs SALES TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 762

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Goods and Service Tax (GST ) order which upheld the validity of the GST notification even without personal hearing of assessee. The bench found that the Petitioner had then applied for rectification through an application raising various grounds, which were rejected without considering any of the raised grounds.

M/S NIKON FINLEASE PVT. LTD vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX -04, DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 763

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Income Tax order which rejected the application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for condonation of delay in filing the revised the income tax return. The ITR filed was rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by the Tax Audit Report [TAR].

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karla viewed that the petitioner has made out a case of genuine hardship for condonation of delay in filing the revised ITR. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

M/s. Pacific International Private Limited vs Commissioner(Appeal) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 764

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has set aside the Good and Service Tax (GST) order passed without recording reason for conclusion on the issue of service tax leviability.

It was found that the Appellate Authority has not made any discussion as to category under which the consideration with respect to services rendered during the periods in question would be exigible to service tax

Ashwani Kumar Bhatia vs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 765

The Madras High Court stated that the circular issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on December 21, 2023, under section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), allowing the creditor to recommend a Resolution Professional in an application filed under Section 95 of the Code, could not be considered to be outside the purview of the Code, particularly Section 97, which states that the IBBI is in charge of selecting the insolvency professional in creditor-initiated insolvency proceedings. This circle increases the overall process’s efficiency.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL vs WISEINVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 766

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order which upheld the CIT(A) order deleting addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made on made on account of Bogus Share Capital.

Since there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, the Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) dismissed the appeal.

M/S. THARAYIL MEDICALS vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 767

The Kerala High Court has held that the issuance of a composite show cause notice ( SCN ) under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act for multiple assessment years is not permissible.

he Court set aside the show cause notice for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 but upheld it for 2017-18, with a direction to complete the adjudication within one month. It also allowed the authorities to issue fresh and separate SCNs for the remaining years if deemed necessary, clarifying that the limitation period shall exclude the time spent during the court proceedings.

KOREA MARINE TRANSPORT CO LTD vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASSII AVATO WARD 204 CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 768

The Delhi High Court has remanded a Goods and Services Tax (GST) matter for fresh adjudication, directing the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the Petitioner’s reply to a show-cause notice.

The court clarified that any fresh order shall be subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in S.L.P No. 4240/2025 and the Delhi High Court’s ruling in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 in the case titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India regarding the state notification.

M/S. JINENDER PAPER MART vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASSII CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 769

The Delhi High Court has overturned an adjudication order and granted the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) that was not properly served, with restricted access to the GST portal due to a prior suspension of their registration.

The court also directed to restore the GST portal to enable the petitioner to access notices and documents. The court clarified that the validity of the notifications remains open, subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the S.L.P and the Delhi High Court’s ruling on parallel state notifications.

SUPERB GALAXY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SARJIVAN KUMAR GARGvs COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 770

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court granted a petitioner two months’ time to file a reply to a Goods and Services Tax (GST) adjudication order that the Court observed was non-speaking and cryptic in nature.

The Court left open the broader challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications, making it subject to the outcome of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.) and a related matter in the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 (Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.)

Karanveer Singh Yadav Enterprises Private Limited vs TheUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 771

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court ruled that the phrase “where it is possible to do so” in Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, places a duty on tax authorities to conclude proceedings within one year unless there are justifiable reasons, which were absent in this case.

The court found that the unexplained delay rendered the proceedings procedurally defective. It allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order and all related tax demands.

Shashi Ranjan Constructions Private Limited companyvsUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 772

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld the imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on construction services rendered under a development agreement, holding that no transfer of land ownership occurred through such an agreement.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that all essential elements for the levy of GST, taxable event, person liable, rate, and value, were present. The court also found no grounds to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly since statutory appeal mechanisms were available to the petitioner. No costs were awarded.

A.Uthayakumar vs The Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax(PCIT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 773

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order transferring the income tax assessment from Theni to the Central Circle of the Income Tax Department in Kochi. The Court found that the transfer was in line with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) guidelines and arose from a search action which led to the seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs from the petitioner in the State of Kerala.

The writ petition was dismissed on 03.03.2025, with no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed

TANISHKA STEEL vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICETAXAND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 774

The Delhi High Court,set aside the order after the petitioner missed the Goods and Service Tax(GST) show cause notice uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab due to a visibility issue, and directed the authority to grant a fresh opportunity to file a reply and be heard.

The Court clarified that the validity of the notifications challenged by the petitioner was left open and would depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in S.L.P No. 4240/2025. All rights and remedies of the parties were also kept open.

Shashi Galvanising Private Limited vsPrincipalCommissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 775

The Patna High Court dismissed a service tax challenge , holding that pre-consultation of Show cause notice (SCN) was not mandatory due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns for the period April 2015 to March 2017.

The petition was dismissed. The petitioner was allowed to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and the tribunal was requested to condone any delay caused by this litigation.

TVL.PVK Constructions vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 776

In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside GST demand orders issued against TVL. PVK Constructions after finding that the tax authorities had passed the order without considering the taxpayer’s request for adjournment. The petitioner, TVL. PVK Constructions, represented by its proprietor Perumal Vijayakumar, had challenged the demand order dated 23.08.2024 and the subsequent rejection of the rectification application dated 13.01.2025, both issued by the State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection), Trichy Division.

Kuddus Ali, Proprietor of M/s. Kuddus Ali ConstructionvsThe Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 777

The Calcutta High Court held that once the self-assessed tax as per Section 37 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act is included in the return furnished under Section 39, the provisions of GST Section 75(12) cannot be invoked for recovery.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury rejected the respondents’ argument that the absence of a show cause notice was not fatal due to the taxpayer’s “admission” in response to ASMT-10. It held that any recovery under the Act must be preceded by due process, including issuance of a notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially where the tax has been duly included in the return under Section 39.

Pankaj Rai a proprietorship vs The Union of Indiathroughthe Ministry of Finance CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 778

The High Court of Patna,allowed the writ application and set aside the tax demand and penalty due to an unexplained two-year delay by the tax authorities in service tax proceedings.

It also noted with concern that the case was left pending with no action for over two years. The Court asked the Chief Commissioner of CGST and Respondent No.2 to look into the delay and decide what action to take. In short,the writ application was allowed.

M/s Reliable Trading Company vs Joint DirectorDirectorateGeneral of Goods and Services Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 779

In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that claiming input tax credit ( ITC ) under the GST (Goods and Services Tax ) Act without any actual supply of goods or services especially from non-existent firms and squarely falls within the ambit of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The bench concluded that “In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition bypassing the availability of alternative remedy. The alternative prayer made for exempting the mandatory deposit, cannot be countenanced, which prayer is contrary to the statute.”

DGGI Vs Het Ram Sharma CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 780

The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, allowed metals entrepreneur Het Ram Sharma to anticipatory bail in an alleged ₹75 crore fake input-tax-credit (ITC) racket, observing that the prosecution had shown no “extraordinary circumstance” to justify custodial interrogation.

Anticipatory bail was therefore granted on a ₹2,00,000 bond with a like surety from a blood relative, subject to conditions that he appear when summoned, remain in India, preserve six months of mobile data and abstain from tampering with evidence. The order expressly disclaimed any opinion on merits.

M/S MICROSOFT LICENSING GP vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMSIMPORT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 781

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court revived the Customs Department’s appeals before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), granting relief to Microsoft Licensing GP by directing the tribunal to reconsider the cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the authority of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) under the Customs Act, 1962.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Delhi High Court directed that the Customs department’s appeals be restored before the CESTAT for a revised decision based on their merits.

Thirumalai Ramesh S vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 782

In a recent order, the Madras High Court directed a taxpayer to file a fresh representation before the Income Tax Officer ( ITO ) seeking an income tax refund of Rs. 3 lakhs for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noting the limited nature of relief sought and without delving into the merits of the case, the Court accepted the department’s submission.

Thangaraju vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 783

In an important ruling, the Madras High Court has ruled that income tax returns ( ITR ) must be filed when you’re withdrawing a high value even while acting as a power of attorney ( POA ) holder. It upheld the income tax demand notice issued against the practising Advocate who acted as a POA and withdrew a high value amount.

Dismissing the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice dated 19.02.2025 within 30 days.

Ranjit V Srivatsaa vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 784

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has held that recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 are automatically stayed when an assessee deposits 20% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing an appeal.

The High Court accordingly quashed the impugned notice and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three weeks. It further ordered the tax department to defer recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided.

Radhamani vs The Income Tax Officer (HQ) (PR) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 785

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking a refund of income tax deducted from her deceased husband’s salary, along with 6% interest.

The bench directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent. Upon receipt, the respondent was instructed to forward the same to the concerned authority, who would then be required to consider and decide on the request within a period of six weeks.

M/S.M.S.DISTRIBUTORS vs THE OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIALTAXOFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 786

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the absence of specific mention of date and time for personal hearing in two successive show cause notices ( SCNs ) issued four months apart.

The Court also clarified that since the petitioner had paid more than the required 10% of the disputed tax, they are entitled to deduct the excess amount from future payments. The writ petition was thus allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

MANISH KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 787

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to an accused involved in an alleged bogus income tax refund scam, observing that there exists no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

The court stated that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be entitled to interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating or Arresting Officer.

Sohanlal Jain Ramesh vs The Assessment Unit CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 788

The Madras High Court has granted relief to a taxpayer whose authorised representative was hospitalised and unable to respond to income tax notices.

The Court set aside the order dated March 1, 2025, and remanded the matter to the department for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within two weeks from the date the portal is reopened.

LANDCRAFT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 789

The Delhi High Court in its recent case held that the period of limitation as per section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 commenced with date on which documents were submitted.

The court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings commenced pursuant to the impugned notice are set aside. It is also clarified that, in the event, any assessment order has been passed after filing of this petition in respect of AY 2015-16 pursuant to the impugned notice, the same would also stand quashed.

IDEMIA IDENTITY AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDvsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 790

The Delhi High Court in a recent case has set aside the Income Tax notice issued demanding management fee paid to oversea company being violative of section 149 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia found that this does not fall within the exception to Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act.

KOLKATA SOUTH vs M/S. DIAMOND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 791

The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit. It was viewed that Section 3 of the Act provides for levy and collection as a cess for the purpose of Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982, a duty of excise on all sugar produced by any sugar factory in India.

The bench rejected the revenue’s appeal, concurring with the Tribunal that duty payments made under the Sugar Cess Act of 1982 could be claimed as Cenvat Credit.

M/s. Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited vs TheDeputyCommissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 792

The Calcutta High Court has held that no deduction from electronic cash/credit ledger can be made by the department where the pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 112(8) of the Central/State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has already been deposited.

The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that on dismissal of appeal, the petitioners intimated the department of their intention to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and also deposited 10 percent of the tax liability aggregating to Rs. 35,316 and the same can be corroborated from the copy of electronic liability ledger.

M/S RESFEBER INFOSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs REGISTRAROFCOMPANIES, KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 793

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) cannot file a criminal complaint under Section 454(8) of the Companies Act while the company’s statutory appeal against the penalty order is still pending. The Court found such a complaint to be premature and quashed the proceedings initiated by the ROC.

The court quashed the criminal complaints and all related proceedings but clarified that the ROC is free to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted, once the appeal is decided. The criminal miscellaneous cases were accordingly allowed.

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs M/S ELECTRO STEELCASTINGLTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 794

The High Court of Calcutta set aside the adjudicating authority’s (AA) order for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act,1994 without any evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the assessee.

The court found no proof that the assessee willfully suppressed facts or tried to evade tax. So, it set aside the entire order by the authority and agreed with the tribunal’s decision.

Seized Documents From Group Companies Justify Coordinated Investigation: Madras HC Upholds Transfer u/s 127 of the ITA

M/s.M and C Property Development Private Limited vsThePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 795

The High Court of Madras,ruled that seized documents from group entities justified the transfer of assessment cases under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,1961 for a coordinated investigation, as the cases needed to be centralized for effective and joint assessment.

The division bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice C.Saravanan noted that documents were seized from the petitioner’s premises by the Kolkata Investigation Wing, which were relevant to the assessment.

M/S HAMFER INDIA TRADING vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 796

The High Court of Delhi directed the adjudicating authority (AA) to rectify its order imposing differential duty on tempered glass despite prior payments made by the petitioner.

The Division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the adjudicating authority (AA) needed to review the amounts imposed and correct the impugned order.

Dhanarajan Narayansamy vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 797

The High Court of Madras, addressing the hardship caused by the attachment of a senior citizen’s pension account, allowed limited relief by permitting monthly withdrawals of ₹2 lakh and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months.

A single member bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner’s pension account had been attached by the department and that he was facing hardship as a senior citizen due to this.

GI.Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 798

The Kerala High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to allow claims of benefit under section 16(5) of GST Act, 2017. By virtue of an amendment effected, sub-clause (5) to Section 16 of the Act, the principal can take Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods if capital goods are directly sent to a job worker for job work.

A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the writ petition is disposed by directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, regarding the claim of the petitioner for the benefit available under Section 16(5) of the Act. Since the petitioner claims that they are entitled for the benefit of Section 16(5) of the Act, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and if the said provision is applicable, he shall pass appropriate orders giving such benefits.

CHAKSHU GARG vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 799

The High Court of Delhi, directed a UAE resident to pay redemption and storage fees for three undeclared iPhone devices seized at the airport, while ordering the release of his gold jewelry without any storage charges.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the gold items to be released without storage charges. For the iPhones, the petitioner was directed to pay both the redemption fee and storage charges.

AIR CUSTOMS vs SANDEEP & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 800

The Delhi High Court, upheld bail granted in a gold smuggling case, citing no fresh grounds to cancel the order.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the respondent was caught with 3 kg of smuggled gold worth about ₹85 lakhs, with Customs Duty evasion of ₹35 lakhs.