Annual Tax & Corporate Law Digest 2025: Complete High Court Cases [Part XX]
This Annual Digest summarises all the High Court Tax and corporate law Decisions in 2025, as reported at Taxscan.in.
![Annual Tax & Corporate Law Digest 2025: Complete High Court Cases [Part XX]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/12/23/2114267-annual-tax-corporate-law-digest-2025-complete-high-court-cases-part-xx-taxscan.jfif "Annual Tax & Corporate Law Digest 2025: Complete High Court Cases [Part XX]")
This Annual Digest summarises all the High Court Tax and corporate law Decisions in 2025, as reported at Taxscan.in. Compliant u/s 132 of HPGST Act cannot be quashed simply because investigation was not made with GST Authorities at Delhi: Himachal Pradesh HC Gagandeep Singhvs Stateof H.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1134 In a recent case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled...
This Annual Digest summarises all the High Court Tax and corporate law Decisions in 2025, as reported at Taxscan.in.
Compliant u/s 132 of HPGST Act cannot be quashed simply because investigation was not made with GST Authorities at Delhi: Himachal Pradesh HC
Gagandeep Singhvs Stateof H.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1134
In a recent case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a complaint under section 132 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (HPGST)/Central Goods and Services Tax CGST Act, 2017, cannot be quashed simply because an investigation was not made with the GST authorities at Delhi.
A division bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla and Justice Saurav Pathania viewed that in Mukesh Singh, the Supreme Court held that the investigation is not vitiated simply because the informant is the investigator. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the cited judgment does not show that the complaint is liable to be quashed because the investigation was made by the officials of the department.
Benefit of Exemption Claim u/s 12A of Income Tax Act should not have Denied merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report: Orissa HC
Society forTrainingAction Research and Rehabilitation vs Central Board of Direct Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1135
The Orissa High Court has held that the benefit of exemption claim under section 12A of Income Tax Act, 1961 should not have been denied merely on account of the delay in furnishing audit report.
The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that mere technicality should not have been ground for claim of exemption under Section 12A of the IT Act. Thus, the CIT has failed to consider the application for condonation of delay in its right earnest under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with power conferred by virtue of Circular No.10/2019, dated 22.05.2019.
Failure to Justify Custodial Interrogation Undermines ED's Case: Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Matter
ANUP MAJEEvsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1136
The Delhi High Court in a recent case granted anticipatory bail to , a businessman accused in a high-profile money laundering case, after finding that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) failed to establish any credible need for custodial interrogation or produce concrete material indicating guilt under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
While granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed several conditions on the applicant. He was asked to pay a personal bond of ₹2 lakh and two sureties. Furthermore he was asked surrender his passport. He was also asked to cooperate with the ED during investigation and appearance on summons. The applicant was also asked not to tamper with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also clarified that any breach would entitle the ED to seek cancellation of bail.
Limitation Period of GST Appeal begins from Date of Communication of Order: Rajasthan HC
M/s. SainikMining andMinerals Coy vs Union of India and Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1137
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act begins from the date the order is communicated to the assessee, not merely from the date it is passed.
Hearing the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that the appellate authority had failed to examine the important issue of when the cancellation order was actually communicated to the petitioner. The Court observed that under GST Act, the time limit for filing an appeal runs from the date the order is served or communicated, not the date it is merely passed, and directed the authority to give a clear finding on this aspect.
Not Reply to GST SCN due to Registration Cancellation, Order Passed: Madras HC grants Opportunity to Contest on Condition
Tvl. Ramya AutoSparesvs The Assistant Commissioner(ST) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1138
The Madras High Court has granted conditional relief to a taxpayer who failed to reply to a GST show cause notice (SCN) because their registration had already been cancelled.
JusticeC. Sarvanan observed that although the petitioner failed to reply due to its own default in maintaining an active registration, an opportunity should still be given to contest the demand to ensure natural justice. Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned assessment order but imposed a condition: the taxpayer must deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in cash with the department.
Delhi HC Denies Bail to Accused of Terror-Funding and Money Laundering Case: Cites Prima Facie Material Under PMLA
SHABIR AHMED SHAHvsNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1139
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah, observing that the material on record establishes a prima facie case of money laundering and terror financing under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur passed the order held that the evidence placed on record by the NIA constituted reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. The Court clarified that while a detailed examination of admissibility would occur at trial, the threshold under the PMLA for denying bail had been met. Further, the Court found no merit in the claim for house arrest, noting the gravity of the charges and the possibility of interference with the ongoing trial.
₹26 Cr GST Fraud: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail to Accused Finding No Extraordinary Reasons Shown by Prosecutor to Deny
Rajesh AgarwalS/o ShriKeshardev Agarwal vs State Of Rajasthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1140
In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in an alleged ₹26 crore fake GST input tax credit ( ITC ) scam, observing that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances holding the accused in custody or not granting bail.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena noted that the seriousness of the charge does not eclipse the presumption of innocence and the right to bail when the maximum sentence is limited and the trial process will take considerable time. The Court held that in the absence of any “extraordinary circumstances,” the accused’s continued detention was not justified, especially since the investigation was complete and the department had already filed its final report.
Rs. 704 Crores GST Fraud: Rajasthan HC refuses to Grant Bail to Accused Noting Custody Escape Attempt
Ankit Bansal vsUnion OfIndia CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1141
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused in an alleged massive ₹704 crore GST fake ITC fraud, citing the seriousness of the economic offence and the accused’s attempt to abscond from custody even during pendency of the bail application.
Justice Anand Sharma observed that “Needless to mention that where the amount involved runs into hundreds of crores and has serious implications over the economic fabric of the country, it cannot be said to be a routine matter; and hence, quantum is directly relevant in assessing the seriousness of the offence and the necessity of custody.”
“Therefore, when determining bail in economic offences, the magnitude of the siphoned amount is not merely incidental but rather an integral indicator of the severity of the offence, potential influence over witnesses or the system, and the possible adverse impact on public confidence in financial integrity and the rule of law” added the court.
Patna HC Denies Service Tax Exemption to BRPNNL for Centage and Toll Services, Says It’s Not a Governmental Authority
Bihar Rajya PulNirmanNigam Limited vs Union of India through the Secretary CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1142
The Patna High Court,dismissed BRPNNL’s plea for service tax exemption on centage and toll-related charges, holding that the company does not qualify as a “governmental authority.”
Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey reviewed the legal definitions and referred to the Shapoorji Pallonji judgment, which said an entity must be created by law or be government-controlled with municipal functions to qualify as a governmental authority. Since BRPNNL did not meet these conditions, its claim for exemption was rejected. The Court also found that BRPNNL had not filed its service tax returns (ST-3) or claimed exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification for the years 2015 to 2017. When asked, BRPNNL’s lawyer admitted this should have been done.
Fake GST ITC Allegations: Rajasthan HC grants Bail to accused Considering Dept has not calculated tax liability
Amit SinghalS/o LateShri Purushottam Singhal vs State Of Rajasthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1143
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused arrested in connection with allegations of availing fake input tax credit ( ITC ) worth crores under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ), noting that the tax department has not yet quantified the alleged tax liability.
Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the non-determination of actual tax liability by the department was a relevant factor. The Court also noted the low rate of convictions in such cases and the accused’s lack of criminal antecedents. Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, the Court found no compelling reason to deny bail and directed that the accused be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties.
Dismissal of GST Appeal for Delay Without Proper Justification Liable to Interference: Madras HC
M/s.Thulasi Fabric rep. by its Proprieterix R.Meena vs TheStateTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1144
The Madras High Court ruled that the dismissal of a Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal solely on the ground of delay, without proper justification, was liable to interference.
Justice C.Saravanan after hearing the submissions of the petitioner counsel and the Government Advocate for the respondents, observed that the appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay without a proper explanation, which warranted interference.
It further noted that the petitioner had already paid the disputed tax and the issue pertained only to a delay in payment. The question of whether the petitioner was liable to pay interest under the Act could be decided in the appeal proceedings.
Income Tax Penalty Notice Not Properly Served Initially, Reminded after 4 Months of its Issuance: Madras HC Directs Decision After Hearing
Jesu Micheal Spelman vs The Central Board of Direct Taxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1145
The High Court of Madras, directed that a decision be made after granting a personal hearing in a case where an income tax penalty notice under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not properly served initially and was only reminded after four months of its issuance.
A single member bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan took note of the fact that the petitioner had already submitted a response to the show cause notice and that no final order had been passed as of yet. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply and pass a speaking order on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order
HC Cannot Direct ICICI to Take Possession of Mortgaged Property, Private Bank Not ‘State’ Under Article 12: Punjab and Haryana HC
RAJVINDER SINGH BEDI vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1146
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed a petition filed against ICICI Bank, a private bank, noting that fundamental rights to take possession of a mortgaged property cannot be enforced against private banks through writ petitions. Since they are not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution ofIndia.
The Court placed reliance on a string of Supreme Court precedents, including Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors., (2022) wherein it has been held that writ petition would not be maintainable against the action of a private financial institution;
The High Court also referred to the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) in which it was held that merely because a private company is carrying on commercial activity of banking, that by itself, would not make it a statutory obligation or one which is public in nature, so as to bring it within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
Rs. 150 Crores Financial Fraud by Employees of Mahindra & Mahindra Finance: Gauhati HC refuses to allow Transfer of case to Assam
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs THE STATEOFMIZORAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1147
The Gauhati High Court, in its recent case refused to allow transfer of a financial fraud case from mizoram to assam holding that a sufficient number of witnesses have been listed by the IO to prove the case, therefore no compelling reason is there to transfer the cases from Aizawl to Assam or to any other District in Assam.
The court held that the petitioner may approach the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench at Aizawl to seek transfer of the cases from the Courts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl and learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl to any other Courts within Mizoram for the purpose of ensuring a proper and fair trial in the interest of justice. The court dismissed the application on finding that this is not a fit case for transferring the matters from the State of Mizoram to the State of Assam or Kamrup (M) for disposal.
SEBI cannot be compelled to Hand over Documents already in Custody of Accused: Calcutta HC Allows Revision Application of SEBI
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) vs M/s.MPSGreenery Developers Limited and Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1148
In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court held that SEBI cannot be compelled to hand over documents already in the custody of the accused. The court set aside the orders passed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) and allowed the revision application.
A single bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that it is clearly seen that the copies of documents prayed for by the accuseds/opposite parties herein have been annexed to the writ application and under Section 91 Cr. P.C. by the accuseds/ opposite parties themselves.
Two of the documents at number 10 and 11 are also available in the public domain.
Illegal Appointment in Govt. Schools: Calcutta HC Allows Release of Accused in Absence of Arrest Under PMLA
In Re: An Application for bail under Section 439 of the CodeofCriminal Procedure & In Re : Dr. Kalyanmoy Ganguly CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1149
The Calcutta High Court in case of illegal appointments in government schools, allowed the release of the accused in the absence of arrest under the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act ( PMLA).
A single bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh held that the petitioner ought to be released forthwith upon execution of bond under Section 91 of the BNSS. The order passed by the chief judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 7th March, 2025, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is set aside/quashed. The petitioner be released upon furnishing bond under Section 91 of the BNSS.
GST Order Issued without Applying Mind to Reply of Assessee Must be Quashed : Madras HC
Rethinsamy Mahalingam vs The State Tax Officer (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1150
The Madras High Court has ruled that the GST (Goods and Services Tax) order issued without applying the mind to the reply filed by the assessee must be quashed. The court noted that the order was non-speaking.
The High Court held that such mechanical disposal of the case without appreciating the defense offered by the assessee amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. It stated that when a reply is filed, the adjudicating authority is duty-bound to consider and discuss it while passing the final order.
GST Payer Alleges S. 74 Order issued to Circumvent Limitation prescribed u/s 73: Madras HC allows to Contest on 25% Pre-deposit
Tvl. Saravanan vs The State Tax Officer (Intelligence) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1151
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payer to contest a demand raised under Section 74 GST Act, after the taxpayer alleged that the impugned order was deliberately issued under Section 74 to circumvent the limitation period prescribed under Section 73.
The bench made it clear that any failure by the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed either by not making the pre-deposit or failing to submit the reply would automatically result in the dismissal of the writ petitions, leaving the authorities free to recover the entire tax amount confirmed in the quashed orders.
GST Liability on Transportation Services to TASMAC: Madras HC Set Aside for Ignoring Reverse Charge Provision in Order
Rethinasamy Gandhi vs Thedeputy State Tax Officer- I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1152
The Madras High Court set aside the GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand order for failing to consider the applicability of the reverse charge mechanism while assessing tax liability on transportation services rendered to TASMAC, a state-owned entity.
Referring to Serial No. 11 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate), which deals with transportation of goods, the Court observed that there was a prima facie case that GST liability in such cases should be discharged by the recipient under RCM. Justice C. Saravanan, noted that the impugned order had not even considered or discussed the applicability of this statutory provision, rendering the order legally unsustainable.
Non-Compliance with RBI Circular While Considering OTS Proposal: Rajasthan HC stays Direction to Deposit ₹7 Crore for Fresh Consideration
Tijaria Polypipes Limited vs Union Of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1153
The Rajasthan High Court stayed the direction to deposit ₹7 crore for fresh consideration of non-compliance with the RBI Circular, while considering the OTS proposal.
A division bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit held that “the direction in impugned order dated 05.05.2025 to further deposit of 27 crores (in addition to 12 crores, already deposited) shall remain stayed till further orders but respondent No.3 is directed to consider the proposal of OTijaria Polypipes Limited TS strictly in accordance with impugned order dated 05.05.2025 and circular dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps be taken against appellant petitioner.”
Chhattisgarh HC Restores Dismissed Tax Case Against SECL, Grants 7 Days to Cure Procedural Defaults
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle1(1) Bilaspur(C.G.)vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1154
The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously dismissed tax case against South EasternCoalfields Ltd (SECL). The case, Tax Case No. 216 of 2024, was dismissed due to procedural defaults under a peremptory order dated 2-4-2025, and the bench granted a period of 7 days to cure the procedural defaults.
After hearing arguments on both admission and the MCC, the court admitted the case and issued a notice to SECL. Advocate Mohit Kumar accepted the notice on behalf of the company. The court then went deeply into the MCC, which requested to revive the dismissed tax case. After going through the reasons presented, the bench concluded that the dismissal was due to procedural lapses and deemed it appropriate to restore the case to its original status.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict in Technical Textiles Case
Prakash Chand Jadaik vs Income Tax Officer and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1155
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against Prakash Chand Jadaik under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related matter.
Following judicial discipline, the bench refrained from expressing its own opinion on the matter. The HC stated that continuing the reassessment proceedings during the pendency of the Supreme Court case could lead to unnecessary litigation and complications. Consequently, the court stayed all further proceedings before the competent authority until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict.
Prior Cutoff Date Not Applicable u/s 245C Income Tax Act for Settlement Application: Kerala HC
UNION OF INDIA vs M/S. AAYANA CHARITABLE TRUST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1156
The Kerala High Court stated that prior cut off date is not applicable under section 245C of the Income Tax Act for a settlement application.
The Single Judge ruled that the deadline of March 31, 2021, should be considered in relation to the search proceedings that were started against the assessee. The issue of whether the applications for settlement before the Board could be maintained was unaffected by the fact that the notices under Sections 153A and 153C of the IT Act were issued later. The court was asked to decide whether an assessee who received notices under Sections 153A and 153C after March 31, 2021, but before September 30, 2021, could continue to submit applications to the Interim Board for Settlement for case settlement.
Customs Cannot Deny Benefit on 'Decalcified Fish Scale' Imported Under Advance Authorisation Scheme: Kerala HC
NITTA GELATIN INDIA LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1157
The Kerala High Court ruled that imports of "decalcified fish scale" are covered by the advance permission program and that customs cannot refuse benefits. The import of raw materials and inputs needed to create export goods is permitted duty-free under the advance permission scheme.
A division bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj held that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.
Income Tax Dept Permits to file Physical Return Even After Expiry of Revised Returns’ Filing Period: Meghalaya HC Directs CPC AO to accept Return
Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1158
The Meghalaya High Court, in a recent case, directed the CPC AO to accept the physical Income Tax Return (ITR) filed bythe assessee as the Income Tax department permitted the filing of a physical return even after the expiry of the period for filing the revised returns.
A division bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew and Justice B. Bhattacharjee, as the concession has been made by the respondents, nothing remains for further consideration in the appeal, and the same is disposed of by directing the CPC AO to accept the revised returns filed by the appellant manually/physically, for due consideration in accordance with law.
PMLA Offence u/s 3 r/w S.4: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes order taking Cognizance for Lack of Hearing Mandated u/s 223(1) of BNSS
Arun Pati Tripathi vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1159
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in its recent case allowed the petition challenging the prosecution of EnforcementDepartment ( ED ) against the applicant for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA). The court set aside the order only on the ground of non compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint as well as on the prosecution sanction order. The bench directed the applicant/revisioner and the respondent-ED to appear before the Special Court on 05.07.2025, so that the Special Judge can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
GST SCN uploaded under Additional Notices Tab, Fails to File Reply: Madhya Pradesh HC directs Dept to Re-open Portal
SINGH CONSTRUCTION AND CO. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHANDOTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1160
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted another opportunity for the assessee after it was found the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) SCN was uploaded under the "Additional Notices" tab on the GSTportal, resulting in the assessee being unaware of the proceedings.
The court noted that the petitioner made out the case. The bench noted that the petitioner had missed out the receipt of the notice and accordingly could not respond to the Show Cause Notice because it was merely uploaded on the portal under the category of "Additional Notices” tab and accordingly could not respond to the Show Cause Notice.
Gauhati HC Allows Bail in ₹6.12 Crore GST Fraud Case Involving Passing on Input Tax Credit
ANIKET SOVASARIA vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1161
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to the accused who was arrested in connection with an alleged ₹6.12 crore GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fraud involving the fraudulent passing of ineligible Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) without actual supply of goods.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Malasri Nandi ordered the release of the petitioner on bail. The Court directed that he furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The bail was granted subject to several stringent conditions: the petitioner must not leave the territorial jurisdiction without permission, must cooperate in the trial, must not influence witnesses, and must refrain from committing similar offences. Any breach of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.
HP HC Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, noting Complainant’s Lack of Financial Capacity and Non-Impleadment of Society
Raghunath Sharma vs Suraj Kant CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1162
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity and had not impleaded the society on whose account the cheque was drawn.
The bench relied on the case of Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, (2019) 3 SCC 797: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 83, in which the apex court held that “In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable.
The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused.”
Himachal Pradesh HC directs State to Reimburse Rs 1.66 Crore SGST Incentive to Sylvan Greens by July 31, 2025, Interest at 6% Ordered on Delay
M/s Sylvan Greens Pvt. Ltd vs State of H. P. & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1163
In one of its latest orders, passed on 24th January 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reimburse Rs. 1.66 crore in Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) incentive to Sylvan Greens by 31-7-2025. The bench also held that if the payment is delayed, an interest of 6% will be charged per annum from the date the amount became due until the actual disbursement.
The petition was disposed of by the bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja by directing the respondents to respondents to release the amount by 31-7-2025. The matter was listed for compliance on 5-8-2025, to ensure adherence to the order. The court also held that in the failure to make the payment to the petitioner, the respondent will be charged an interest of 6% per annum from the due date until the actual payment is made.
‘Reason to Believe’ Not Communicated to GST Fraud Accused During Arrest: Gauhati HC Grants Conditional Bai’
VARUN GOYAL vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1164
The Gauhati High Court has conditionally granted bail to Varun Goyal, who was arrested under the Assam Goods and Services Tax ( AGST ) Act, 2017, for allegedly availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth over ₹9.9 crore without any actual supply of goods.
The Court found that the State failed to show compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, including service of notice and proper communication of the “reason to believe”. Noting that the petitioner had cooperated during the enquiry and that no further custodial interrogation was sought, the Court held that continued detention was not necessary at this stage.
GST Order Liable to Be Set Aside When No Hearing u/s 75(4) is Provided: Madras HC
Roop Rajat Exports vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1166
The Madras High Court has held that a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order is liable to be quashed if the taxpayer is not provided with a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench instructed that the petitioner must first pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, submit a reply with supporting documents, and the department must then grant a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.
Technical Glitch in Income Tax Portal: Madras HC quashes Order as Taxpayer Could not Opt Personal Hearing
R.R. International Represented by Partner vs The Assessment UnitCITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1167
The Madras High Court has set aside an income tax order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing due to a technical issue on the Income Tax e-filing portal.
Justice Ramasamy stated that a “In the case on hand, due to technical glitch, the petitioner could not opt for personal hearing in the portal and ultimately the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.” When a personal hearing is requested, particularly in cases involving possible tax demands, the court observed that failing to grant it results in a denial of a fair hearing and violates natural justice.
Auditor Misplaced Requisite Papers Causes 32 days delay in filing GST Appeal: Madras HC condones Delay
Tvl.Arunai Computer Forms vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1168
The Madras High Court has condoned a 32-day delay in filing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal caused by the petitioner’s auditor misplacing critical papers needed for filing after finding the reason was genuine.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 25 February 2025 rejecting the appeal and directed the GST Appellate Authority to admit the delayed appeal, hear the matter afresh on merits, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving the taxpayer sufficient opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was thus allowed.
GST Officer Must Consider Granting Additional Time for Reply When Repeated Adjournments Are Sought: Madras HC
Jakam Sekar Ranjith vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1169
The Madras High Court set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order observing that the Officer concerned always has to apply his mind while passing the order and non-providing the opportunity before passing the order is a waste exercise.
The bench stated that the denial of a personal hearing, particularly when factual disputes are involved, constitutes a serious procedural lapse. He noted that the Officer must not only ensure service of notice and receipt of reply but also actively engage with the assessee by pointing out what specific documents are required to justify the claim.
Rs. 14L Cybercrime by Forged Documents and Impersonation as Income Tax Dept & Customs Dept: Gujarat HC Refuses to Grant Bail considering Grievance of Offence
VERONICA ANDREW ANNIKA LETHABO vs STATE OF GUJARAT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1170
In a recent case, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant bail in case of 14 Lakh cybercrime by forged documents and impersonation as the Income Tax Department & Customs Department.
A single bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar viewed that once, the matter was withdrawn or dismissed on merit and there is no change in circumstances, present successive application by the appellant on the same ground is not permissible only on a specific ground that a considerable time have been passed or charge sheet has been filed.
Calcutta HC dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Order passed u/s 148A(d) of Income Tax Act on limitation, citing Availability of Alternative Remedy
Manoj Kumar Bagree vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1171
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order passed under section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was beyond the period of limitation. The dismissal was based on the availability of an alternative remedy.
A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury viewed that the contention raised by Ms. Roychowdhury that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the said Act is beyond the period of limitation, cannot be sustained. Since, the petitioner otherwise has an alternative remedy to challenge the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the said Act,the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy before the statutory authority.
“Reasons is the Heartbeat of Every Conclusion”: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes GST Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal on Limitation without Due Reasoning
Anil Kumar vs Union of India and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1172
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently set aside an appellate order that dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal, solely on the ground of limitation without assigning proper valid reasons for the same.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) to reiterate that ‘reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion, that which substitutes subjectivity with objectivity and ensures transparency’. The Bench held that the absence of reasoning amounted to denial of justice and rendered the appellate order unsustainable.
Gauhati HC Allows to seek Restoration of Cancelled GST Registration on Payment of Full tax and Filing of Pending Returns
RIJU MONI GOGOI vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1173
The Gauhati High Court allowed seeking the restoration of cancelled GST registration on payment of full tax and filing of pending returns.
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi disposed of the writ petition by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submitted such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22 (4) of the Rules, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of her GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
Failure to respond to CGST Notice due to lack of proper internet: Guwahati HC Allows GST Registration Restoration on compliance of Rule 22 (4) of CGST Rule
MUNNI CHAR vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1174
The Gauhati High Court allowed the assessee to seek restoration of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), 2017 registration on compliance with Rule 22(4) of CGST Rule, as the assessee was from a remote area that failed to respond to the CGST Notice due to a lack of proper internet.
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi viewed that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.
No Business Found at Declared Address: Calcutta HC Refuses to Quash GST Cancellation, Directs to take Appellate Remedy
Surojit Das vs Superintendent of Central GST & CX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1175
In a recent order, the Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with the cancellation of GST ( Goods and Services Tax) registration, whose business premises were found locked and non-operational during physical verification by the GST authorities.
It was also submitted that there was non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the rules governing inspection and verification. However, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the issue involved disputed questions of fact, which are not amenable to resolution under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that determining whether the petitioner is actually carrying on business at the declared address would require evidence and fresh enquiry, which is best left to the appellate authority under the GST Act’s multi-tier adjudication process.
Challenge on Unconstitutionality of Nidhi Rules 2014 as per Companies (Amendment) Act 2017: Madras HC directs to Submit Fresh Reply on Rectifying defects
Vaasavi Nidhi Ltd. vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1176
In a recent case, the Madras High Court has directed the petitioner to submit a fresh reply by rectifying the defect while challenging the unconstitutionality of Nidhi Rules 2014 as per the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017.
The Division Bench held that “The writ petitions have been instituted to assail the order passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2023 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in Form NDH-4 and to declare the amendment made substituting Section 406 of
The Companies Act 2013 with new Section 406 as per The Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (Act 1 of 2018) published vide gazette dated 03.01.2018 and notified with effect from 15.08.2019 requiring the Nidhi Companies which are already incorporated as Nidhi Companies to once again get a declaration as Nidhi by the Central Government is illegal, excessive, arbitrary and unconstitutional and strike down the same; to declare the amendment made to Nidhi Rules 2014 by Nidhi (Amendment) Rules 2019 vide notification dated 01.07.2019 with effect from 15.08.2019 by inserting Rule 3A and Rule 23A are illegal, excessive, arbitrary and unconstitutional and strike down the same.
Confiscated Goods u/s 130 of GST Act Can be released During Pendency of Appeal When Not Auctioned: Kerala HC
NIKHIL AYYAPPAN vs STATE OF KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1177
The Kerala High Court ruled that objects seized under Section 130 of the GST Act may be released while the appeal is pending provided they haven't yet been put up for auction.
A single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that it is true that the assessee has previously been given the aforementioned choice in accordance with the confiscation order, but the time frame specified therein has already passed. But according to the department, the products haven't been sold yet.
Writ petition to Quash approval u/s 151 of Income Tax Act: Himachal Pradesh HC Stays Proceedings Till Disposal of Case Pending before Supreme Court
Brij Mohan Khanna vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1178
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the writ petition filed to quash the approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 till the disposal of the case titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr pending before the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja directed that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also. The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, stayed such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Proper Officer Should follow Formulae u/r 42 and 43 to Compute Utilization of GST ITC and Reversal Thereof: Calcutta HC
Hemraj Rice Mill vs The Assistant Commissioner, CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1179
In a recent order, the Calcutta High Court emphasized the importance of the assessing authorities to follow the formulae prescribed under Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules for the computation and reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury after considering the submissions and materials on record observed that the appellate authority itself had found that the original determination was made without applying the proper procedure for ITC computation and reversal as provided under Rule 42 for inputs and input services, and Rule 43 for capital goods.
Open Ended Provision Permitting Collection of Duty in future Amounts to excessive delegation: Andhra Pradesh HC
A.P. Textile Mills Association vs State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1180
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that open ended provision permitting collection of duty in future amounts to excessive delegation.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that it was open to the legislature to have shifted to an indirect tax regime, by simply stipulating that Duty can always be collected, by a licensee, from its consumers, subject to an exemption being given by the government, from such collection.
Consent from President not required for amendments to S. 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
A.P. Textile Mills Association vs State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1180
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that consent from president not required for amendments to Section 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that in case of Article 254 (2), If a law is made by the State legislature, with respect to any matter enumerated in the Concurrent list and contains any provision which is repugnant to any earlier law made by parliament or any existing law, the State law would prevail if the assent of the President is received. Act 10 of 2024 and Act 23 of 2024 have been enacted in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 53 of the State list and not under any entry in the concurrent list. The impugned Acts are not related to any entry in the concurrent list. The question of seeking the assent of the president, on this ground, would not arise.
Delegation of power to categorize Consumers as per discretion without any guidance in Duty Act is invalid: Andhra Pradesh HC
A.P. Textile Mills Association vs State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1180
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that delegation of power to categorize Consumers as per discretion without any guidance in A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939 is invalid.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao viewed that the stand of the State is that, guidance has to be elicited on the basis of the Objects and Reasons, of Act 23 of 2024. As discussed above, no guidance can be obtained from these Objects and Reasons. Consequently, the delegation of power, to the executive, to identify categories without any guideline or policy, would amount to excessive delegation, which is not permissible.
Tariff can be regulated under Electricity Act, levy of Duty is sole prerogative of State and cannot be regulated under Act : Andhra Pradesh HC
A.P. Textile Mills Association vs State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1180
In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Tariff can be regulated under Electricity Act,2003 while levy of Duty is sole prerogative of the state which cannot be regulated under the act.
The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao viewed that coss subsidy which is a part of the Tariff can be regulated under the provisions of the Electricity Act. However, levy of Duty, either for the purposes of subsidizing consumers or for any other purpose, would be outside the scope of the regulatory process under the Electricity Act, 2003. The levy of Duty or additional Duty is the sole prerogative of the State and cannot be regulated under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
