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

Mahalakshmi Mines vs Deputy Commercial (ST)(GST)(Appeal) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 801

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 30-day delay in filing GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeals by a taxpayer, holding that the petitioner’s unawareness of the ex parte assessment orders appeared genuine on a condition of payment of 5% additional pre-deposit.

The Court further directed the appellate authority to admit the appeals on record upon the petitioner’s payment of the additional 5% and to dispose of the same on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

M/s.Star Brand Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner GSTandCE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 802

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court allowed a taxpayer to contest a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) demand order, which was confirmed on grounds that the GST consultant failed to provide a proper reply with evidence.

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, followed by filing a comprehensive reply along with relevant documents within two weeks thereafter. The respondent department was directed to provide a clear 14-day notice for personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits.

M/S NEXUS SHANTINIKETAN RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 803

The Karnataka High Court recently granted relief to Nexus Shantiniketan Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Nexus), restraining the Revenue from initiating coercive recovery steps in connection with a ₹9.5 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand, while advising the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy available under law.

Furthermore, the Karnataka High Court observed that it was necessary to allow the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy to attain the ends of justice and maintained the interim protection against coercive recovery measures for a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.

Vinplex India Private Limited vs Principal CommissionerofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 804

In the matter of income tax refund that was sanctioned with interest but paid without it, the Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and dispose of the taxpayer’s representation regarding the unpaid interest.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 11.03.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.

Karunanathan vs The Secretary to Government of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 805

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an elderly couple seeking access to funds held in a frozen savings account, citing the absence of verified proof regarding their mental competence.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, after examining the medical documents and submissions, held that the bank’s actions were appropriate and found no illegality in the impugned communication.

Neeraj Saluja vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 806

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Neeraj Saluja, a director of SEL Textiles Limited, in connection with a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court cited prolonged incarceration, lack of trial progress, and a judicial stay on further proceedings arising from the predicate offence as key grounds for granting relief.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat, delivering the judgment, ordered Saluja’s release on bail with stringent conditions, including a Rs. 10 lakh bond with three sureties, surrender of passport, and restriction on disposal of assets mentioned in the ECIR. The Court underlined that these measures would ensure Saluja’s presence at trial without infringing on his fundamental rights.

M/S NHDPL SOUTH PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION BANK OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 807

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Banking Ombudsman that rejected a complaint for invocation of bank guarantees through email, holding that such electronic communication satisfies the requirement of a written notice under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Quashing the Banking Ombudsman’s order dated 21 December 2020, the court directed that the complaint be reconsidered in light of the legal recognition of electronic communication, and noted that denying invocation solely due to lack of physical notice despite timely emails was unjustifiable. The petition was accordingly allowed.

SHIVALIK HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUEANDORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 808

The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against the Goods and Service Tax(GST) demand on housekeeping services provided to government educational institutions, stating the authority must decide on the pre-deposit.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy by 10th July 2025, along with an application for determining the pre-deposit, which was to be considered in accordance with law.

T.Thandapani Nattu Marunthu Kadai vs The SuperintendentOfGst CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 809

The Madras High Court has restored the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration of a petitioner whose registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns during the COVID-19 pandemic conditionally.

The Court clarified that these dues must be paid in cash and not adjusted against any unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). Additionally, any ITC claim must be scrutinized and approved by the competent authority before it can be utilized.

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing after the issuance of a second corrigendum that enhanced the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) amount.

The court found that the enhanced demand post-second corrigendum required a fresh hearing, which had not been granted. The bench citing principles of natural justice, observed that any demand against a taxpayer must be preceded by a fair hearing.

Sruthi Raj vs The Commissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 811

The Madras High Court has held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) erred in dismissing an appeal as time-barred without considering the fact that the Appellate Authority ( AA )’s order was returned undelivered.

The court observed that there is no evidence to refute the appellant’s version and finding merit in the plea, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the delay, if any, deserved to be condoned.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs LATA GOEL CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 812

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the income-tax department’s appeal, affirming an ITAT order that granted the taxpayer a ₹90-crore exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act. A bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia ruled that different floors of a single building cannot be counted as separate “residential houses” for denying the “rollover” relief from capital gains taxation under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act.

Power Engineering (India) Private Ltd. vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 813

The Bombay High Court in a recent case, quashed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) refund recovery in absence of issuance of Valid show cause notice (SCN) and due to no granting of hearing opportunity.

The High Court struck down the July 10, 2024, recovery decision due to a procedural error, but it did not address the fundamental legal issues raised by Rule 96(10). If required, the Court permitted the Revenue to start new procedures, but only under strict adherence to Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, guaranteeing due process.

UPENDRA MAHATO vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 814

The Calcutta High Court, in its recent case, has quashed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) order rejecting rectification applications even without providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee found that the appellant did not have adequate opportunity to put forth the submissions before the authority. The court remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law..

M/S Xestion Advisor Private Limited AdditionalCommissionerGrade II and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 816

The Allahabad High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) assessment order passed without issuance of notice under section 46 of the GST Act, 2017.

Justice Piyush Agrawal held that the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.

M/S Maa Kama khya Trader vs Additional Commissioner Grade2And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 817

The Allahabad High court in a recent case held that the Goods and Services Tax Authority (GST) Authority cannot allege discrepancy after goods were verified in MOV – 04.

A single bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”

R.Vijayan vs The Commercial Tax Officer O/o. CommercialTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 818

The Madras High Court has dismissed a review petition appeared by a party-in-person, who sought compensation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing delay and alleged false information provided by the Public Information Officer of the Commercial Tax Department.

The Division Bench comprising Justices R. Suresh Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, held that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage.

Tvl Sakthi Murugan Lorry Service vs The Deputy StateTaxOfficer -1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 819

The Madras High Court has criticised the mechanical approach adopted by the tax authorities in serving GST notices and set aside an assessment order passed against a lorry service firm, citing failure to ensure effective delivery and denial of a fair hearing.

Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here

Justice N. Mala, in her order dated 8 May 2025, observed that the act of repeatedly uploading notices to the GST portal without verifying receipt by the taxpayer amounted to mechanical compliance, defeating the purpose of issuing a show-cause notice. The Court held that when a taxpayer fails to respond to notices uploaded online, the officer should have exercised due diligence by resorting to other methods of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD).

Ramasamy HUF vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 820

The Madras High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to accept the declaration filed by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024, and issue Form-2, despite an earlier rejection based on a technical ground. The Court held that once the appeal had been revived by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the HUF was entitled to avail of the scheme as the appeal was pending as on the relevant date.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, deciding the case on 23 April 2025, held that in view of the ITAT’s order reviving the appeal, and in light of Section 4(6) of the DTVSV Act, 2020, all proceedings and claims stood restored and the petitioner was therefore entitled to avail of the scheme. The Court directed the Principal Commissioner to accept Form-1 and issue Form-2 by 28 April 2025, taking note of the impending expiry of the deadline.

Prithvi Apartments Co-operative Housing Society LimitedvsThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 821

The Bombay High Court recently laid down the strict nuances of law permitting the reopening of income tax reassessment, clarifying that no income tax assessment can be sustained beyond a period of four years without there being an explicit failure on part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.

The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain at the very outset noted that the first proviso to Section 147 places a bar on an assessment order passed under Section 143(3), mandating that any case may be reopened after four years only upon failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.

Sarulatha Mani Mudaliyar vs The Tax Recovery Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 822

The Madras High Court has held that the rights of secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act take precedence over tax claims by revenue authorities, and directed the Sub-Registrar at Puducherry to register a sale certificate issued by a secured creditor in favour of the petitioner. The order came in a writ petition filed by Sarulatha Mani Mudaliyar, who had purchased the mortgaged property through an auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act by JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, delivering the judgment on 23 April 2025, held that the bank’s right to recover dues under the SARFAESI Act was unaffected by subsequent tax department attachments. The Court observed that the sale had been conducted lawfully and the purchaser’s rights could not be stalled due to revenue claims lacking priority.

Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department & Anr CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 823

In a sharp rebuke to a trial court, the Bombay High Court has set aside a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in an alleged 2019 tax-evasion case, describing the lower-court order as “mechanical” and “cryptic.” The Vacation bench of Justice Advait Sethna ruled on 16 May that the magistrate had acted “contrary to law” when he ordered Rampal’s arrest under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, which punishes wilful attempts to evade tax, penalty or interest.

M/s.KLP Projects Private Limited vs Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 824

The Madras High Court has held that the limitation period for issuing notices under section 153C to a third party commences from the date when materials are seized or requisitioned, not from the date of the search.

The court observed that the notice issued on 30.12.2024 was within the permissible time frame. The court further observed that even if settlement arrived at IBS settlement the department can initiate new proceedings based on fresh evidence. The court found the petitioner’s cited judgments inapplicable to the facts of the case.

Dhanapal Eswari vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 825

The Madras High Court has partly allowed a writ appeal filed by a gas cylinder and stove distributor, setting aside the condition imposed by a Single Judge to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount.

The court directed the department to pass a final order within four weeks from the receipt of the court’s order, after hearing the parties and adhering to principles of natural justice. The writ appeal was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Jan De Nul Dredging India Private Limited vs TheDeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 826

The Madras High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to consider and dispose of a representation submitted by the petitioner for a pending tax refund of Rs. 92 lakh along with applicable interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.

The court directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 07.08.2024 on its own merits and in accordance with the law, within 12 weeks from the receipt of the court’s order.

Jayar Enterprises vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 827

The Madras High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to entertain an appeal filed by the petitioner subject to the payment of the balance admitted Income tax amount of Rs. 28,76,662 in six equated monthly installments citing financial constraints.

The court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal, subject to the petitioner adhering to the prescribed payment schedule. The court emphasized that the appeal should be considered on its merits after providing the petitioner sufficient opportunity for a hearing.

G.P. Tronics Private Limited & anr. vs State of WestBengal & ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 828

The Calcutta High Court today granted relief to G.P. Tronics Private Limited and its co-petitioner by permitting them to file an appeal against an order passed under Section 73 of the West Bengal and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, even though they failed to respond to a show-cause notice. The bench held that disputed factual issues must be addressed through statutory appeal rather than writ jurisdiction.

Justice Basu Chowdhury observed that the writ petition was filed on 18 October 2024—over a month after the impugned order—and that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay; in his view, it would be imprudent for the High Court to entertain the petition when an appeal lay under the GST framework.

Sai Kiran Clearing Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs The DeputyCommissionerof Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 829

The Bombay High Court recently upheld the principles of natural justice, quashing an income tax reassessment order that was passed by the department before the deadline that had been allotted to the petitioner to file their reply to the Show Cause Notice (SCN).

The division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the impugned order was passed without considering the Petitioner’s response, despite the response being within the prescribed deadline, thus being violative of the principles of natural justice.

Ashok Kumar Saha vs Union of India & ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 830

A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, disposed of a petition by remitting an ex parte appellate order to the first appellate authority.

Justice Basu Chowdhury observed that the GST framework envisages a multi-tiered adjudicatory process and noted that “the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted,” making a writ petition less appropriate but underscoring the need for a proper appellate hearing.

CASIO INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 831

In an important order, the Delhi High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Department for an inordinate delay of over 12 years in disposing of Casio India’s income tax appeal, even as the department proceeded to recover an amount of ₹3.56 crore during the pendency of the appeal by adjusting the refund amount of the subsequent years.

The court found merit in Casio’s Grievance. The Division Bench observed that there had been “inordinate delay” in addressing the appeal. The Court, while refraining from issuing a writ of certiorari, directed the concerned appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal within 12 weeks from the date of the order, after giving Casio an opportunity of being heard. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GARG ACRYLIC LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 832

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the income tax department on the ground that the tax effect involved was below the prescribed monetary threshold of ₹2 crore, and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to justify the appeal.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that there was no indication of the assessee having received any cash back or indulging in accommodation entries, an essential ingredient to qualify for the exception under the CBDT circular. Therefore, the Revenue’s claim that the case involved exceptional circumstances warranting an appeal, despite the low tax effect, was found to be without merit.

DAMANPREET SINGH(PROP.M/S ACE ENTERPRISES) vs UNIONOFINDIA & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 833

The Delhi High Court recently referred to the principles of natural justice while setting aside a sales tax adjudication order on grounds that the assessing authority had failed to duly consider the petitioner’s reply and failed to grant them an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SUJATHA REVIKUMAR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 834

In a recent ruling the Kerala High Court has held that non-serving of a copy of the draft assessment order to a person who is not an “eligible assessee” under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will not vitiate the assessment order.

The division bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S are inclined to presume that the assessees in those cases were eligible assessees, since the statutory provisions clearly bring out a distinction between the two. The court allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge.

SULENDER SHAH AND ANR vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 835

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere in ongoing adjudication proceedings initiated by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Department against a Chartered Accountant and co-petitioner, a trader for engaging in the dealings with bogus firms.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and directed that the adjudication proceedings in respect of the Show Cause Notice continue in accordance with law.

M/S U.S Metal Products vs State Of U P And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 836

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that minor clerical errors such as a one or two-digit mismatch in the GST invoice or on the GST e-way bill cannot be the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.

The Court quashed the penalty orders dated 16.04.2022 and 19.12.2021 and held that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were not sustainable in law. It also directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner in this regard must be refunded in accordance with the law.

M/s Hundal Traders vs State of U.P. and another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 837

The Allahabad High Court has sought a detailed clarification from the State GST Department in a case where initiation of penalty proceedings under the Section 129 of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) for alleged violation of Rule 86B of the GST Rule is challenged.

The court observed the gaps in the counter affidavit. The Division Bench of Justices Kshitij Shailendra and Arun Bansali directed the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit specifically addressing the concerns raised, particularly regarding the STO’s jurisdiction under the CGST/IGST framework and the applicability of Rule 86B to the case at hand.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SIS LIVE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 838

In a ruling clarifying the interpretation of CBDT ( Central Board of Direct Taxes ) circulars governing income tax appeals, the Delhi High Court has ruled that losses assessed in previous assessment years (AYs) and disallowed for carry-forward cannot be included while computing the “tax effect” for the purpose of determining the maintainability of an appeal.

M/S JMS MINING PVT LTD. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHANDOTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 839

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to entertain writ petitions contesting the denial of private warehouse license applications on availability of remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.

The court ruled that the High Court should not have granted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution against the Assessment Order by granting the statutory remedy of appeal in a tax dispute when such a remedy is available. One law that offers a sufficient and effective remedy is the Customs Act of 1962. As a result, we see no justification for interfering with the contested order under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

M/S WESTAN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES vs THE COMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 840

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has permitted the assessee to reply to the show cause notice (SCN) demanding Customs duty on various goods imported.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the Adjudicating Authority shall comprehensively adjudicate the matter in respect of all the bills of entry and pass one comprehensive order.

M/S MASCON vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICESTAXAND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 841

The Delhi High Court has set aside the show cause notice (SCN) passed by Sale Tax officer which was without considering the challenge made by Assessee against a sales tax notification.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta finding that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner, remanded the matter back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

Mere Change in Route Not Enough to Invoke GST Sec.129: Calcutta HC

Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Bagaria vs The State of WestBengal& Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 842

The Calcutta High Court has held that a mere change in the transportation route or interception of a vehicle at a location not aligned with the route declared in the e-way bill is not sufficient to invoke proceedings under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( WB GST Act ) unless it is clearly established that there was an intention to evade tax.

The bench quashed the penalty orders dated May 22, 2024 and January 16, 2025, and allowed the writ petition. It directed the authorities to refund the penalty amount already deposited by the petitioner within three weeks upon receipt of the order and the refund application.

GAUTAM WALIA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 843

The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Processing Centre ( CPC ) of the Income Tax Department cannot repeatedly rectify and re-rectify intimations issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench set aside the rectification order dated 05.03.2025 and remanded the matter to the ACIT to reconsider the issue afresh. The ACIT has been directed to examine whether a re-rectification is legally sustainable after the CPC had already issued a favourable rectification order.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs LOREAL SA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 844

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that a trial court becomes functus officio once a case is finally decided, so it cannot initiate fresh or miscellaneous proceedings on the same matter. The ruling came in a dispute involving L’Oréal SA, where the trial court had continued to issue directions even after passing a final judgment and decree.

The court held that the trial court’s actions in initiating MISC DJ/3620/2024 and issuing further directions were without authority and amounted to judicial overreach.

Jan Mohammad Wani vs UT of J&K and Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 845

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the retrospective cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of a petitioner, directing the competent authority to restore his GST number upon receipt of a formal application and completion of requisite formalities.

In a further stipulation, the petitioner must file any outstanding GST returns and deposit the taxes due, along with interest and penalty, within two weeks of the restoration of his registration. The Court made clear that failure to comply within the stipulated time would render the order inoperative.

ST. ANTONY TRADING AND TRANSPORT PVT. LIMITED vsJOINTCOMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 846

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has set aside the order passed under section 107(12) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST), 2017 without stating points for determination and reasons for decision. The single bench set aside the order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after granting a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Tvl.N.V.R. Sons vs .Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 847

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the validity of a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) notification issued under Section 168A of the Central GST Act and a corresponding Government Order (Memorandum) issued, dismissing a writ petition.

It was also held by the court that the issuance of the notifications was in line with the powers conferred under the respective GST enactments. It observed that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction and that the notifications were neither arbitrary nor in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

M/S COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR INDIA SOURCING PVT. LTD vs UNIONOFINDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 848

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court directed the Revenue Department to refund the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) along with applicable interest to Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. The refund must be processed within a period of three months. The court quashed prior orders issued by the department that had classified the services exported by the petitioner as “intermediary services” under the GST framework.

The court ordered the Revenue Department to process the refund claim along with interest and allowed the writ petition. The ruling offers substantial clarity on the distinction between intermediary services and independent export of services under GST law.

M/S NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERCGSTDELHI SOUTH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 849

The Delhi High Court has asked the Joint secretaries of the Ministry of Urban Development ( MoUD ) and the Ministry of Finance to convene a meeting with respect to the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand issued by Directorate General of GST Intelligence ( DGGI ) on ESCROW Funds.

The court took into consideration the complexity of the issue and the fact that it involved inter-ministerial financial arrangements, it directed both ministries to meet and determine whether the GST department should continue to press the demand or if the matter should be resolved administratively.

BANSON ENTERPRISES & ANR. vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONERCGST & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 850

The Delhi High Court has held that the fraudulent availing of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) regime, without any actual supply of goods or services, fundamentally violates the purpose and integrity of the ITC facility.

The high court concluded that no violation of natural justice had occurred, as the petitioner had been provided with a fair opportunity to respond and be heard. As such, the petition under Article 226 was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate GST appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROFINCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 851

The Calcutta High Court has held that notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be challenged through writ petition after the final assessment order.

On the ground of non-supply of essential documents,the bench found that the petitioner has acknowledged to have received the copy of the excel sheet though the petitioner claims that some other documents were necessary for it to give appropriate response.

M/S WATER INDIA PVT LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 852

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed two show cause notices issued to Waters India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the services rendered to its foreign affiliate, Waters Ges.m.b.H. (Austria), qualify as export of services and do not fall within the scope of intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017. The court found that these services were performed on a principal-to-principal basis and without any facilitation between third parties.

The court ruled that Waters India was not an intermediary, and the services provided met the criteria for export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act. The show cause notices were quashed and the petitions were partly allowed.

M/S ICON FIBRES FABRICS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 853

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified the implications of the Supreme Court’s Canon India judgment, holding that DRI officers qualify as ‘proper officers’ under the Customs Act. It also ruled that any penalty imposed without a proper hearing must be referred back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) for adjudication.

Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that appellant had not been granted a meaningful opportunity to present its case before the CESTAT, the Court held that procedural fairness was compromised.

Mayasheel Retail India Limited Erstwhile Gstin vs StateOfChhattisgarh Through Secretary Commercial Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 854

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated the judicial principle that while writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are legally maintainable even in the presence of an alternate remedy under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ), they must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant the court’s discretionary intervention.

The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable, however cannot be entertained as petitioner failed to make out any such exceptional circumstance. Since the CGST Act provides a specific remedy under Section 107, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction should not become a substitute for statutory appellate procedures.

SRI GANPATI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, CGST,DELHIWEST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 855

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court directed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) adjudicating authority to reconsider two Orders-in-Original ( OIO ) issued from two Show Cause Notices ( SCNs) against an exporter.

The bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed that both orders be reconsidered solely concerning Sri Ganpati Exports. A personal hearing is to be granted, and corrected orders must be issued within 30 days.

Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited vsTheDeputy Commissioner of Revenue CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 856

A significant ruling was recently passed by the Calcutta High Court, directing the Revenue to reconsider its earlier decision which sanctioned a Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund into the Electronic Credit Ledger of a company whose business operations had ceased, and whose registration had been cancelled.

Justice Chowdhury instructed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider and rectify this contradiction, granting a period of six weeks to make a new determination after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 857

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot claim exclusion of limitation under Section 153B of the Income Tax Act for the time spent on an invalid reference made under the Indo-Swiss Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that Article 26 was substituted by the 2010 Protocol and came into effect from April 1, 2011. The court clarified that the substituted article entirely replaced the earlier one, and there was no saving clause preserving the previous rights. The request made by the department for information predating this cut-off was invalid and could not extend the limitation period.

COMPETITIONCOMMISSION OF INDIA vs THE ADDITIONALCOMMISSIONER OF CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 858

In a recent development, the Delhi High Court stayed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 10.35 crore raised against the Competition Commission of India (CCI), observing that no coercive steps shall be taken against the statutory regulator at this stage. The demand was raised through an order dated 16.01.2025 by the Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta took note of the legal position established in the CERC judgment and directed that no coercive action be taken against CCI in connection with the impugned tax demand.

IE VENTURE FUNDI vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDELHI 4 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 859

The High Court of Delhi ruled that non-claim of carry forward loss in the next assessment year (AY)is not a valid reason to reject an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSV) Scheme. IE Venture Fund,petitioner-assessee, filed its return of income for AY 2022–23 on 29.07.2022, declaring a loss of ₹17.68 crore to be carried forward. However, it later clarified that it did not intend to claim this loss.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia examined the petitioner’s rejection under the DTVSV Scheme, which was based on the case not falling under Rule 9 of the DTVSV Rules. Rule 9 explained how to calculate disputed tax when there was a reduction in loss or unabsorbed depreciation, allowing the petitioner to either pay tax on the reduced amount but keep the original loss or accept the reduced loss. The petitioner had to choose this option voluntarily and could not be forced.

RASI INNOVATIONPVT LTD vs SUPERINTENDENT, WARD 84, DELHIGST & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 860

The Delhi High Court has strongly ruled that the GST official must clearly mention the specific provisions of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act and Rules that are allegedly violated in the Show Cause Notices ( SCNs ). The court also issued directions to send a copy of the order to all GST Commissionerates and Superintendents across the Delhi GST department.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh M. Gupta, while delivering the judgment, observed that the issuance of such generalised SCNs without citing specific sections or rules undermines the principles of natural justice.

KK TRADING COTHROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SATYA VATI vs AVATOWARD 77 STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX& ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 861

The Delhi High Court in its recent ruling, set aside the order passed under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) as the challenge on the GST notification was yet to be adjudicated by supreme court.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court and had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions.

PANCH TATVAPROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 862

The Delhi High Court set aside the notice issued under section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the Pen Drive contains information regarding transactions of bogus invoices that cannot be incriminating material.

In so far as the petitioner is concerned, information allegedly found was regarding a purported transaction of ₹70,78,680/-, which was allegedly supported by bogus invoice. However, the said transaction pertains to the Financial Year 2014-15.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia Vibhu Bakhru allowed the petition and set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act in respect of AY 2019-20.

SOUTH DELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs MOON STEELAND GENERAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 863

The Delhi High Court ruled that, for property tax purposes, a “industrial building” can incorporate an IT and software office in addition to more conventional ideas of production including tangible and real commodities.

A single bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that an ‘Industrial Building’ encompasses IT sector businesses where non-material inputs such as data, digital content, or intellectual capital are subjected to systematic transformation or reconstitution into new intellectual property outputs, such as software, algorithms, digital products, or proprietary databases.

Y.P.SPICES PLTD vs COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXES & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 864

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling allowed the rectification of DVAT returns to enable issuance of Requisite ‘F’ Form in respect of goods transferred under Interstate Trade and Commerce

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted the petitioner to rectify its DVAT returns for the period of 01st January, 2013 to 31st March, 2013, all four quarters of Assessment Year 2013-14 and for the period April 2014 to June 2014 in order to enable the issuance of the requisite ‘F’ Forms to the Petitioner.

M/s ShakilAhmad Security Agency vs Deputy CommissionerState GST Ghaziabad and 2 others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 865

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ruled the “proper officer” under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) must clearly state the relevant facts and the basis for the decision in their final order even if the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice.

Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra and quashed the demand order dated 27.04.2024, directing the department to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show-cause notice within four weeks. The Court further instructed the GST officer to pass a fresh, reasoned order only after granting the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs THIRD GENERATION TRADERSPVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 866

The Delhi High Court held that unexplained credits routed through conduit companies cannot be taxed in their hands, but must be assessed in the hands of the actual beneficiaries.

Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had upheld the deletion of protective additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the hands of Third Generation Traders Pvt. Ltd. for multiple assessment years ranging from 2012-13 to 2017-18.

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-1 vs GOTOTECHNOLOGIES IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANYCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 867

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the revenue’s appeal and upheld the ruling that the subscription payment received by an end user from a non-resident computer supplier is not royalties.

Concededly, the issues involved in the appeal is covered by the decision of the Court in ITA No.282/2024 and 315/2024, captioned Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-1, New Delhi v. Goto Technologies Ireland Unlimited Company (Earlier known As Logmein Ireland Unlimited Company).

In view of the above, the division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia found that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of the court and dismissed the appeal.

GRASIMINDUSTRIES LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 868

In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the GST Department for failing to apply its mind while adjudicating a case involving input tax credit (ITC) mismatch.

Justice D.N. Ray found that the department had acted mechanically and ignored the reconciliations and amended returns furnished by the petitioner. The court observed that departmental officers themselves had later admitted, through a compliance report and affidavit, that the mismatch was only due to data entry errors and not due to any tax evasion or illegality.

MIS DREAMCANNFOODS PRVIAE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHIVALUE ADDED TAX, & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 869

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court has allowed the rectification of its Delhi Value Added Tax ( DVAT ) returns for multiple quarters across the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17. However, the implementation of this direction has been made contingent upon the outcome of certain appeals currently pending before the Supreme Court.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, noted that the present dispute bore striking similarity to the issues raised in the case of ‘Commissioner Department of Trade and Taxes v.Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.’, which is currently pending in Civil Appeal before the apex court.

M/S MHJMETALTECHS PRIVATE LIMITED vs CENTRAL GOODS ANDSERVICES TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 870

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the writ petition of huge Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) fraud involving Rs. 155 crores, has reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised in cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) considering the impact on GST and exchequer.

Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupat held that cases involving fraudulent ITC claims cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction, as such cases involve serious allegations, complex factual disputes, and financial implications for the exchequer.

MATRIX CELLULAR(INTERNATIONAL) SERVICES PVT LTD. vs THEPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX DELHICITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 871

The Delhi High Court has held that an Input Service Distributor (ISD) under Goods and Services tax (GST) is entitled to a refund of an inadvertent deposit made into its Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL), along with applicable interest.

Judges Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the CGST Rules’ a refund process required strict compliance to deadlines, specifically examination within 15 days and processing within 60 days after receiving a completed application.

Arif Khan vsState of H.P. & ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 872

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an auction Purchaser is liable to pay the outstanding taxes on vehicles acquired through auction. It stated that there is no equity in taxation law and equity would only come into play in case there is no law operating in the field.

The bench noted that in accordance with section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the onus of paying taxes shifts to the new owner if the tax-liable party transfers possession without paying the outstanding balance.

ENKEBEEINFRATECH INDIA PVT. LTD. VS THE COMMISSIONER OFSTATE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 873

The Calcutta High Court has remanded the challenge on difference in taxable value of invoice mentioned in GSTR-2A for fresh adjudication by the adjudicating authority. It was held that “ The adjudicating authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the appellant, perused all the documents and records that they may produce and after passing complete verification of all details, the adjudicating authority shall take a fresh decision on merits.”

A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)viewed that this can be verified departmentally by various means and the matter need not linger further before this court as any further delay will not be in the interest of revenue.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS vs ABHISHEK RAMISETTY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 874

The Calcutta High Court has directed the assessee to file a fresh refund application as per section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST), 2017 as the statute mandates it after rectifying the deficiency.

A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the Single Bench was fully justified in permitting the writ petitioner to cure the deficiencies and submit the refund application which has been directed to be processed. As could be seen from the impugned order the deficiencies are all not substantive in nature but more procedural in nature. If that be so, the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. The court viewed that the direction issued by the single bench was just and proper and calls for no interference.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates