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

Allahabad HC Quashes GST Cancellation Order Passed Without Reasons, Reiterates Doctrine of Merger Inapplicable where Orders Lack Application of Mind

M/S Suraj Kumar Upadhyay vsState Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1380

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration cancellation order on the ground that the order was passed without assigning any reasons and without proper application of mind.

Justice Piyush Agarwal observed that a quasi-judicial order which adversely affects the right to do business guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution must reflect an application of mind and clear reasoning, failure to do so violates Article 14 as well.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte GST Demand Over Improper SCN Service via Portal’s ‘Additional Notice’ Tab

PRIYANKA GOYAL vs SALES TAXOFFICER CLASS II/AVATO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1381

The High Court of Delhi, set aside an ex-parte Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) demand of ₹1.04 crore raised under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, citing improper service of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) via the portal’s ‘Additional Notice’ tab.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the issue of notices being uploaded under the ‘Additional Notice’ tab had already been addressed in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner, Delhi GST, where similar ex-parte orders were set aside due to lack of proper service. In that case, the Court followed earlier decisions and held that notices uploaded only under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab could be missed and must also be communicated clearly, including via email.

GST Registered Firm Cannot Claim Ignorance of GST Provisions or Rules, Service via GST Portal is Valid: Madras HC

M/s.Mohana Constructions rep vsThe Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1382

In an important ruling, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court upheld the service of notices through GST port is valid and observed that a registered GST firm cannot plead ignorance of the GST Act or its rules made thereunder.

Justice C. Saravanan, rejected the petitioner's argument, observing that since the firm was registered under the GST enactments, it was expected to be fully aware of the modes of communication prescribed under the law.

Bank Employee’s Exit Option Scheme fails to Meet VRS Criteria: Kerala High Court dismisses Appeal for Section 10(10C) Income Tax Exemption

N G GANGADEVI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1383

Kerala High Court dismisses Bank Employee’s Appeal for Section 10(10C) Income Tax ExemptionIn a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal of a retired bank employee who had sought income tax exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the Exit Option Scheme (EOS) under which she retired did not qualify as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in terms of Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules.

It was observed by the bench that, “Even before us in this appeal, there is nothing produced that would suggest that the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below were perverse or based on no evidence whatsoever. Under such circumstances, we find that there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal since the findings of all the authorities have been based essentially on the facts obtained in the instant case. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal.”

Delhi HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Petition Against ITC Denial Over Non-Service of SCN, Directs Petitioner to Avail Appellate Remedy

M/S SOHAM INDUSTRIES vs CENTRALGOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1384

The High Court of Delhi, refuses to entertain a writ petition challenging denial of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) worth ₹26.95 lakhs under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) on the ground of non-service of ShowCause Notice (SCN), holding that the order was appealable under Section 107 of GST Act.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that such matters should be addressed through proper appellate channels and that allowing writ petitions in such cases would result in multiplicity of proceedings and possible contradictory findings. However, since the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the SCN, the Court directed that a copy be provided within a week at the given email address.

Arrest for Dealing of Illicit Drug: Jammu & Kashmir HC grants bail considering the Medical condition of Accused

Parvaiz Ahmad Hanga vs UnionTerritory of J&K CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1385

Parvaiz Ahmad HangaThe High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to an accused who was arrested for dealing illicit drugs, considering his critical medical condition.

A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti granted bail for a duration of four months subject to the furnishing of bond, personal as well as surety, to an amount of Rs. 5 lac each to the satisfaction of the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal who shall also settle terms and conditions of the bail hereby granted by the Court and then enlarge the petitioner on bail.

GST Registration obtained by fraud and suppression of fact: Calcutta HC sets aside cancellation finding existence of Premises

Shree Balaji Polycon & Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (GST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1386

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court set aside the cancellation, finding existence of premises. The cancellation was made on finding that the GST registration was obtained by fraud and suppression of fact.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury viewed that the cancellation of registration cannot be permitted to continue. The court set aside the order of cancellation of the petitioner no.1’s registration effected vide order dated 17th February 2023. The jurisdictional officer is directed to restore the petitioner no.1’s registration on the portal.

Karnataka HC directs to grant bail for offence u/s 4 of PMLA on Execution of Personal bond

DR. B.K. NAGARAJAPPA vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1387

The Karnataka High Court in itsrecent case directed to grant bail for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act') upon execution of a personal bond.

A single bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty directed to be enlarged on bail in ECIR/BGZO/05/2025 registered by the Additional Directorate, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending before the Court of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, subject to conditions.

Delhi HC Rejects Bollywood Actress Jacqueline Fernandez’s Plea to Quash PMLA Case Without Trial

JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1388

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to dismiss the corruption case against Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez without a full trial stating that the matter involves serious allegations that must be examined thoroughly in court.

The bench presided over by Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the evidence on record raised serious questions about whether the actress was aware of the source of the gifts and whether she had benefited from criminal proceeds. The court said these questions could not be decided at the preliminary stage and required a full trial where evidence could be examined in detail.

Second-hand Digital MFDs Qualifying as Highly Specialized Equipment Are Freely Importable and Eligible for Provisional Releases: Madras HC

M/s.Taanish Enterprises vs TheCommissioner Of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1389

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that second-hand digital multifunction devices (MFDs) that qualify as Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) are freely importable and eligible for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

The bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose held that once the imported MFDs met the conditions under Clause 8 of CRO, 2021, they were exempt from BIS and DGFT requirements. The court observed that similar goods had already been adjudicated as freely importable by other High Courts and the Supreme Court.

J&K High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Retired Army Man Accused in ₹6 Crore Crypto Fraud

Naresh Kumar Gulia vsDirectorate of Enforcement and anr CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1390

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a retired army personnel accused in a multi-crore cryptocurrency fraud case.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani observed that the allegations were serious and involved the financial exploitation of thousands of people, including over 2,000 victims from Leh alone.

BNS Offences Qualify as Scheduled Offences Under PMLA Even Without Formal Amendment: Bombay HC

Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vsThe Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1391

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, can be treated as scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, even without a formal amendment to the PMLA Schedule.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed that the PMLA Schedule does not incorporate the IPC provisions word-for-word but merely refers to them. The court held that this kind of reference is to be interpreted in light of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for substitution when a statute is repealed and replaced.

Provisional Release of Goods Under Section A of the Customs Act: Madras HC Grants Importer an Opportunity for Hearing

Satheesh T R vs The AdditionalCommissioner Of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1392

The Madras High Court has granted an importer an opportunity to be heard in relation with his plea for provisional release of imported goods that had been detained by customs authorities.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that the issue is highly debatable and held that the petitioner should be allowed to submit a reply including this new evidence and that the customs authorities must consider this reply in a fair and timely manner.

Malaysian National's 4Lakh Indian Currency Seized: Madras HC Declines Immediate Return, Orders Customs to Follow Due Process in 8 Weeks

Saravana Jothi vs The ChiefCommissioner Of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1393

In a recent order, the Madras High Court refused immediate release of the Indian currency of a Malaysian National seized amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs, however, ordered the customs department to release it within 8 weeks.

The Court, thus disposed of the writ petition without awarding costs, stating that it would not intervene at this premature stage where departmental proceedings were still underway.

Wrongful Invocation of GST S. 130 Instead of S. 74: Allahabad HC Finds Prima Facie Case, Restrains Coercive Recovery

M/S Bindal Smelting PrivateLimited vs The Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1394

The Allahabad High Court, restrained coercive recovery in which it has prima facie found that there was merit to the claim that the proceedings under Section 130 was wrongly invoked instead of Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017.

JusticePiyush Agrawal heard both sides. It was observed that the matter requires consideration and directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within six weeks. The bench granted interim protection to the petitioner by restraining coercive recovery actions until the next date of listing, provided the petitioner deposits 10% of the remaining tax liability within 15 days.

Clerical Error in E-Way Bill Not Tax Evasion: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty, Directs Refund with 4% Interest If Any Amount Deposited

M/S Gaylord Packers India Pvt.Ltd. vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1395

In an important ruling, related to the fact that clerical mistakes do not imply tax evasion, the Allahabad High Court quashed the penalty order, holding that a minor typographical error in the e-way bill does not warrant proceedings under Section 129 of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Act.

Justice Piyush Agrawal agreed with the petitioner's arguments and pointed out that the case at hand was directly related to the precedent set in M/s Cavendish Industries Ltd.

GST Order Not Reflected in 'View Notices' Tab: Allahabad HC Accepts Plea, Directs Fresh Notice with 15 Days’ Clear Time

M/S Gupta Traders vs State ofU.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1396

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order issued due to the improper uploading of statutory notices on the GST Portal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar, while allowing the petition, directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law, providing at least 15 clear days’ time to the petitioner to respond.

GST Appeal on Registration Cancellation Rejected without Reasons: Allahabad HC sets aside Order, says Quasi-Judicial Orders Must Be Reasoned

M/S Nikhil Construction vs StateOf U.P. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1397

The Allahabad High Court is to examine a critical question concerning the applicable rate of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) in cases where the invoice reflects a revised rate, but payment is made at an earlier rate.

The division bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Praveen Kumar Giri was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Nikhil Construction, challenging the respondent authorities’ remittance of GST at 5% instead of 12%, despite the petitioner raising the invoice at the revised rate.

GST Appeal on Registration Cancellation Rejected without Reasons: Allahabad HC sets aside Order, says Quasi-Judicial Orders Must Be Reasoned

M/S Tyagi Lube Agency vs StateOf Uttar Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1398

The Allahabad High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration and subsequent appellate rejection observing that the quasi-tribunal orders must be reasoned and should apply before passing it.

Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that the appellate authority’s dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal filed against the rejection of revocation of registration was passed without assigning any reasons, and therefore could not be sustained in law.

No SCN Issued Post-Seizure of Goods: Madras HC Orders Customs to Decide Representation Promptly

Jai Jwala Exim vs The AdditionalCommissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1399

The Madras High Court directed the Customs Department to expeditiously decide on the representation filed by the petitioner concerning seized imported goods, in which the department failed to issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) after seizure.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that no prejudice would be caused to the Customs Department if it were directed to dispose of the representation on its merits. The Court stated that the authorities were duty-bound to act on such representations without undue delay, particularly when a person’s goods and commercial interests are affected.

S. 44(1)(c) of PMLA Applicable After jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of scheduled offences: Bombay HC

Amit Chandole vs Directorate ofEnforcement CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1400

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has held that section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act') applies after jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of scheduled offences.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that the stage that has been contemplated under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, 2002 will be after the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offences. The said stage will come if the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by rejecting the C-Summary Report takes cognizance of the offence and issues process.

‘Admitted Liability’ Auto-Selection on GST Portal Misled Assessee: Madras HC Allows Liberty to File GST Appeal Despite Delay

Tvl SLV Concrete GSTIN vs StateTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1401

Due to uncertainty produced by the GSTN interface, the Madras High Court recently ruled that the assessee had the right to appeal a GST (Goods and Services Tax) assessment order even after the statute of limitations had passed.

The court, considering the procedural confusion and absence of any legal bar on filing an appeal, permitted the petitioner to file the appeal afresh, subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount comprising 10% towards the statutory pre-deposit and an additional 5%.

Dept Erred in Treating Voluntary GST Payment u/s 73(5) as Response to S. 74 SCN: Calcutta HC Remands Matter

Dharmendra Singh vs DeputyCommissioner of Revenue CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1402

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department was not justified in treating a voluntary tax payment made under Section 73(5) of the CGST Act as a response to a show cause notice issued under Section 74, without seeking clarification from the taxpayer.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the department had not made any effort to confirm the petitioner’s intention behind the voluntary payment before treating it as compliance with the show cause notice under Section 74.

Delhi HC Upholds Legality of Supplementary PMLA Complaint Despite Lack of Extensive New Material

Directorate ofEnforcement Represented through its Deputy Director Government of India 10-A vsSh. Sanjay Bhandari CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1403

The Delhi High Court upholds ED’s supplementary PMLA complaint despite the absence of extensive new material, finding no procedural illegality.In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the legality of a supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even though it did not include extensive new material.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the law does not prohibit filing a supplementary complaint even if it contains limited new material, as long as it serves a valid procedural or legal purpose.

Setback for Kalyan Jewellers: Karnataka HC Rejects KVAT Appeal, Holds Revision u/s 64 Within Limitation

M/S KALYAN JEWELLERS SALEM(PVT.) LTD vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OFCOMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1404

The High Court of Karnataka,while dismissing the appeal filed by Kalyan Jewellers Salem (Pvt.) Ltd held that the revision proceedings initiated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act,2003,were within the prescribed limitation period.

Justice S.G Pandit and Justice T.M Nadaf observed that the limitation period under Section 64(3) should be counted from the date the records were called. Since the records were called within the permitted time from the date of the appellate order, the proceedings were held to be within time. Hence, the substantial question of law did not survive.

FEMA Violation Not a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA, ED Cannot Freeze Assets Without Predicate Crime: Madras HC

R.K.M Powergen Private Limitedvs The Assistant Director CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1405

The Madras High Court ruled that a violation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) cannot, by itself, trigger proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as FEMA is not a scheduled offence under the Act. The Court held that in the absence of a predicate offence and proceeds of crime, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) lacked the jurisdiction to freeze the assets.

The division bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that the existence of a predicate offence is a mandatory requirement under PMLA. The court observed that the alleged FEMA violations or financial structuring issues cannot substitute for a scheduled offence.

Supreme Court Declares Hyatt Has Permanent Establishment in India, Must Pay Tax Under Indo-UAE Treaty

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWESTASIA LTD vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 204

The Supreme Court of India held that Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd., a company incorporated in Dubai, has a permanent establishment (PE) in India under Article 5(1) of the Indo-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and is therefore liable to pay tax on its income earned through hotel consultancy services in India.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that Hyatt’s control over hotel operations, its right to assign personnel without hotel owner approval, and its revenue-linked fees indicated deep commercial involvement. They observed that the legal requirement was not exclusive use of physical space but the ability to conduct core business activities from a location in the source country.

Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes JAO’s Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction, Says Notice Should Be Issued by FAO

Krishna Gupta vs Income TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1406

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that it should have been issued only through faceless assessment as mandated by the Ministry of Finance notification.

The bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji observed that the impugned notice was issued by the JAO in violation of the faceless assessment requirement as per the notification.

Urban Development Office Memo Limits Dues to Service Charges Alone, Not Property Tax: Delhi HC Orders to Enter agreement for Timely Payment

UNION OF INDIA vs MUNICIPALCORPORATION OF DELHI CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1407

The Delhi High Court has directed the Northern Railways, Delhi Division, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to enter into an agreement in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 15th/17th December 2009 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, for payment of service charges instead of property tax.

A bench comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna observed the petitioner’s willingness to execute the agreement and issued directions for the Senior Divisional Engineer-III to visit the Joint Assessor and Collector, Assessment and Collection Department (GRP) Cell, MCD, at Dr. SPM Civic Centre, New Delhi, within two weeks to facilitate the agreement.

ED’s Attachment Order u/s 5(1) of PMLA Not Open to Writ Challenge Without Exhausting Remedies Under the Act: Kerala HC

VIPUL SHIPPING ENGINEERING WORKSvs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1408

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, cannot be challenged through a writ petition before the available statutory remedies under the Act are exhausted.

The division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a self-contained legal framework with a clear mechanism for redressal.

Motor Vehicle Tax Dues: Orissa HC Permits Owner to Deposit Arrears, Direct to file Reply for Penalty Waiver

Sunil Kumar Dehury vs StateTransport Authority CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1409

The Orissa High Court has permitted the petitioner to deposit outstanding Motor Vehicle Tax and additional Motor Vehicle Tax for his vehicle, while directing him to file a reply before the appropriate authority for waiver of penalties shown on the Transport Department's web portal.

A bench comprising Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed that the petitioner should be allowed to deposit the taxes and seek waiver without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

ITC Reversal under CGST Act: Madras HC Quashes Recovery Order, Applies S. 16(5) for Extended Deadline

M/s.Rivera Enterprises vs TheDeputy State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1410

The Madras High Court has quashed a recovery order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer and held that the claim for InputTax Credit ( ITC ) is covered under the amended provisions of Section 16(4) and 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

A bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the amendments under Section 16(5) allow registered persons to claim ITC in returns filed up to November 30, 2021, notwithstanding Section 16(4). The court held that the impugned order was no longer sustainable in light of these developments.

Service Tax Demand: Madras HC Quashes Impugned Order Against Ganesh Cell Communication on Terms, Directs Deposit of 25% Disputed Tax

M/s. Ganesh Cell Communicationvs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1411

The Madras High Court has quashed the service tax order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise under the Finance Act, 1994 subject to payment of 25% of disputed tax amount.

A bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan observed that while an appeal was time-barred, partial relief could be granted by quashing the order on terms, following consistent views in similar cases under GST enactments and Supreme Court rulings in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE and CCE and Customs vs. Hongo India (P) Limited.

GST Assessment on a Deceased Person is Void Ab Initio: Allahabad HC

Samban Pharma vs DeputyCommissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1412

The Allahabad High Court has delivered that any tax determination made against a person who is already deceased is invalid from its inception. The court clarified that while legal heirs are liable for the tax dues of a deceased individual, the assessment proceedings cannot be initiated or concluded in the name of the dead person. It is a fundamental requirement that any show-cause notice must be issued to the legal representative, providing them an opportunity to be heard before any liability is fixed.

The division bench, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, observed that since the notice was issued and the determination was made against a dead person without bringing the legal representative into the proceedings, the order could not be sustained in the eyes of the law.

Revision u/s 64 of KVAT Act After Grant of Karasamadhana Scheme Benefit Not Permissible: Karnataka HC

M/S. OMKAR LAND DEVELOPERS vsTHE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1413

The High Court of Karnataka, held that after grant of benefit under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021, initiating revision proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act is not permissible.

Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice T.M.Nadaf considered whether the Revisional Authority could initiate proceedings under Section 64 of the KVAT Act after the petitioner had already availed benefits under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021. It answered this in the negative.

Depreciation Claim u/s 32 of ITA Allowable on Actual Cost of Assets Taken Over from Dissolved Firm: Madras HC

Sundaram Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1414

The High Court of Madras, held that depreciation claim under Section 32 of Income Tax Act,1961,is allowable on actual cost of assets taken over from a dissolved firm.

The Division bench comprising K.R.Shriram (Chief Justice) and Sunder Mohan (Justice) noted that the main issue was whether the assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on the assets taken over from the firm.

Market Value for S. 80-IA Deductions Should Be Based on Industrial Consumer Rate not Power Supplied to SEBs : Calcutta HC

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL- 1 vs RUNGTA MINES LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1415

The High Court of Calcutta, ruled that market value for Section 80-IA deductions of the Income Tax Act,1961 should be based on the tariff applicable to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is supplied to State Electricity Boards (SEBs).

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Chitali Chatterjee (Das) noted that the assessee was not in the business of selling power to distribution companies or SEBs. The Captive Power Plants (CPPs) were set up to ensure uninterrupted power supply and reduce electricity costs for its own manufacturing units. Therefore, the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) could not be based on average market rates charged by suppliers to distribution companies.

Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here

Customs Revisional Order Based on Another’s Case Without Assessing Taxpayer’s Defense: Madras HC Remands Matter

A.K.Ganesan vs The PrincipalCommissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1416

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that a customs revisional order is invalid if it is passed solely based on findings in another person’s case without properly considering the taxpayer’s own defence.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the revisional authority had not considered the petitioner’s case independently and had only looked at the facts relating to Jayanthi.

Madras HC Quashes DGFT Order on MEIS Scrip Cancellation for Daimler India

Daimler India CommercialVehicles Pvt.Ltd. vs Additional Director General of Foreign Trade Office of theAdditional Director General of Foreign Trade CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1417

The High Court also criticized the Appellate Authority for failing to apply its mind and for issuing a mechanically reasoned order without addressing key legal requirements. In an important judgment related to export incentive, the Madras High Court has quashed an order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) that had retrospectively - partially cancelled Merchandise Exports fromIndia Scheme (MEIS) scrips issued to Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court accordingly quashed the impugned order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, directing that the DGFT re-examine the case in light of the Court’s findings within three months.

CFS License Suspended Alleging Smuggling of Poppy Seeds from Myanmar: Madras HC Orders Customs to Reconsider Decision

M/s.Sudharsan Logistics Pvt. Ltdvs The Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1418

The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to reconsider the suspension of the Container Freight Station ( CFS ) licence, which suspended alleged smuggling of 56 MT poppy seeds from Myanmar.

Justice Abdul Quddhose, after hearing arguments from both sides, observed that while the matter involved serious allegations, the petitioner should not be deprived of its right to conduct business without a fair hearing.

Without Seizure or Detention Orders by Customs, Demurrage Waiver Claim Cannot Be Entertained : Madras HC

Modern Line- Export vs TheAssistant Commissioner Of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1419

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking a waiver of demurrage and detention charges on imported goods that remained uncleared at the port observing that the same cannot be entertained when there are no orders on seizure or detention that were not issued by the customs department.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that without any formal finding of illegal seizure or detention by Customs, the petitioner cannot claim compensation or reimbursement from the department.

Madras HC dismisses Challenge against DRAT order Allowing Sale of 42.24 acres by Indian Bank citing Non sale of whole property

K.Chandrasekar vs The Chairman CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1420

In a recent case, the Madras High Court dismissed a challenge against the Deb Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT] order allowing the sale of 42.24 acres by Indian Bank on finding that the bank had not sold the entire extent of 42.24 acres.

Since the writ petition was filed on the premise that second respondent/bank had sold the entire extent of 42.24 acres, which is now found not to be correct, the division bench of K.R.Shriram, Chief Justice and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the writ petition.

GST Classification Dispute Over Flavoured Milk: Madras HC Directs Britannia to Approach Appellate Authority

Britannia Industries Limited vsCommissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1421

The Madras High Court has directed Britannia Industries Limited to file a fresh representation before the appropriate appellate authority regarding the GST classification of its “Winkin’ Cow” flavoured milk product.

Justice Krishnan Ramamsamy held that the petition was premature and directed Britannia to file a detailed representation before the designated appellate authority within two weeks. In turn, the authority was directed to decide on the representation within four months from the date of its receipt.

Customs Broker Licence Revoked Under Regulation 17(7): Madras HC directs to Approach CESTAT, Dismisses Writ Petition

M/s.Shalom Forwarders vs TheCommissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1422

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed challenging the revocation of customs broker licence under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Justice C. Saravanan observed that the Customs Act and the CBIC licensing regulations provide a specific statutory appellate mechanism, and it was open to the petitioner to challenge the revocation order before the CESTAT.

Customs Classifies Animal Feed as Edible Nuts: Madras HC Finds ₹1 Cr Bank Guarantee on ₹18L Import Onerous, Orders Reconsideration

Shri Murugula Shabbir Shaik vsThe Additional Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1423

The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Customs Department which required an importer to furnish a ₹1 crore bank guarantee and 1.76 crore bond for the provisional release of animal feed cargo worth ₹18 lakh, terming the condition ‘Onerous’.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the conditions imposed for provisional release were disproportionate to the value of the goods and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation. The Court noted that when the cargo was clearly found unfit for human consumption, it was unclear how authorities could classify it under a chapter applicable to edible products.

Delay of 4 months in filing GST Appeal cannot be rejected merely on ground of time barred: Punjab &Haryana HC Directs fresh adjudication

M/s GK Housing & DevelopersPrivate Ltd. vs State of Punjab CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1424

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directs fresh adjudication on finding that the delay of 4 months in filing the GST appeal was rejected merely on ground of time barred without referring to the same or dealing with the merits of the case, review whereof was also dismissed on account of its non-maintainability.

A single bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary viewed that it would have been better that there was an application of mind by an authority higher than the one which was appealed against, reflected through an order. Moreso, the petitioner would stand to gain nothing by delaying filing it.

Writ cannot be invoked to Challenged NFRA Notices: Telangana HC Dismisses Plea of Statutory Auditors of Concord Drugs

Mr. Ayyagari Krishna Rao VSNational Financial Reporting Authority CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1425

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the plea filed by statutory auditors of Concord Drugs, holding that a writ petition could not be invoked to challenge show cause notices issued by the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA).

The Court held that while NFRA could investigate past conduct, it could not impose penalties harsher than those applicable at the time of the alleged misconduct. In this case, NFRA had only issued show cause notices seeking information, and no final orders had been passed. Therefore, the Court found it too early to decide on punishment.

Duplication of GST Order in Portal: Delhi HC allows opportunity to Reply on SCN

M/S RAKS TRADE LOGISTICS PVT.LTD vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1426

The Delhi High Court, in its recent case, allowed an opportunity to reply to show cause notice on finding duplication of GST order in the portal.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta considering the duplication in the final demand order dated 19th February, 2025, the Petitioner ought to be given a chance to file a reply to the show cause notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing also ought to be accorded.

Karnataka HC sets aside order passed without issuing Notice, Directs dept. to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notice

M/S MUNI NAGA REDDY HUF vs THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1427

In a recent case, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the order passed without issuing notice and directed the department to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notice, when the said e-mail was opened and when the email was read, so that these kind of situations could be avoided.

A single bench of JusticeSuraj Govindaraj remitted the matter for fresh consideration by respondent No.1. Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 without requirement of any further notice on 4th August, 2025 at 2:30 P.M. and submit his reply in such document as the petitioner intends to rely upon and respondent No.1 shall proceed thereafter, in accordance with law.

Assessee unaware of Form GST DRC 01 SCN uploaded on common portal under “Additional Notices and Orders”: Calcutta HC remands to Appellate Authority

Mohammad Hasim Khan vs The Stateof West Bengal & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1428

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court remanded the issue of showcause notice to the appellate authority as the assesee was unaware of the Form GST DRC 01 show cause notice uploaded on common portal under “Additional Notices and Orders”.

A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that all records of the proceedings are available on the common portal and it is far more convenient for the appellate authority to access such records from the common portal.

Allahabad HC Upholds validity of GST Notice uploaded in Common Portal u/s 169 (1)(d) of CGST Act, Dismisses Petition

M/S Radha Industries Thru vs TheDeputy Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1429

The Allahabad High Court in its recent case upheld the validity of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) notice uploaded in common portal under section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and dismissed the writ petition challenging the same.

A division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla found that the petitioner's counsel has misread and misunderstood the purport, meaning and application of clause (f) of Section 169(1). In this case it is not denied that the notice was uploaded on the common portal, which is a mode of service mentioned in clause (d) of Section 169(1), therefore, clause (f) has no play or application in the facts of this case.

‘Bunching’ Impermissible under GST Act: Madras HC Says SCN can be Issued based on Monthly Returns if Annual Filing Pending

Smt R Ashaarajaa vs The SeniorIntelligence Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1430

“The GST Act permits only for issuance of show cause notice based on the tax period” said the Madras High Court while quashing the Show Cause Notice ( SCNs ) issued to multiple taxpayers which bunched multiple financial years together.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “(i) The GST Act permits only for issuance of show cause notice based on the tax period. Therefore, if the annual return is filed, the entire year would be considered as a tax period and accordingly, the show cause notice shall be issued based on the said annual returns.

Denial of Hearing Despite Prior Direction of Coordinate Bench: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Income Tax Order, Remands Matter to NFAC

Nazirpur Large sizedMultipurpose Co-op Society & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1432

The High Court of Calcutta, set aside the income tax order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and remanded the matter to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), observing that no personal hearing was granted despite prior direction from the Coordinate Bench.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that the appellate authority had tendered an apology for not granting a hearing. While the reasons given were not satisfactory, the apology was accepted as sincere.

Duty Drawback and RoDTEP Claims Withheld Since 2017: Madras HC Directs Authorities to Act on Exporter’s Grievance Against ‘Risky Exporter’ Status

M/s.BNBS Exports Private Limitedvs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1433

The Madras High Court has directed the customs authorities to consider a representation for the removal of the “risky exporter” alert and act on the long-pending duty drawback and RoDTEP claims that have been withheld since 2017.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, taking note of the submissions and the documentation furnished by the petitioner over the years, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities seeking removal of the alert status.

Reopening Beyond 4 Years Invalid if Material Facts Disclosed: Madras HC Dismisses Revenue's Appeal

The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai vs M/s. Siva Ventures Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1434

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision that quashed a reassessment proceeding initiated after four years on the ground that the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment.

The Court found that the facts of that case were not applicable here, as Honda Siel dealt with a challenge to the reopening notice under Article 226 of theConstitution, focusing solely on whether the Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction to issue such a notice.

Income Tax Dept has No Statutory Power to Cancel Sale Deeds : Madras HC Quashes Attachment Order

K.N.Subramaniam vs The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1435

The Madras High Court, while quashing the attachment order passed by the TaxRecovery Officer ( TRO ), ruled that there is no statutory provision in favour of the income tax department to annul or cancel the sale deed between two parties which is already pending in dispute before the civil court.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan held that the Income Tax Department has no statutory authority to cancel sale deeds executed between private parties, thereby setting aside the controversial order dated 16.02.2023 issued by the TRO.

Secondment arrangement does not give rise to any tax liability: Karnataka HC sets aside IGST Demand

M/S. ALSTOM TRANSPORT INDIALIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1436

The Karnataka High Court held that the secondment arrangement does not give rise to any tax liability and set aside the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) demand.

In light of the statutory exclusion under Schedule III and the clarificatory Circular issued by the CBIC, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the secondment arrangement does not give rise to any tax liability, and the demand raised by the Revenue is liable to be set aside.

₹25 Lakh Loan from Unverified Entity: Delhi HC Dismisses Income Tax Appeal for Lack of Genuineness and Creditworthiness

MEENAKSHI GUPTA vs INCOME TAXOFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1437

The High Court of Delhi, dismissed an income tax appeal involving a ₹25 lakh loan received from an unverified entity, M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd., due to lack of evidence establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the record did not show any search or any statement from the authorised person of M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd. to support the claim that it was an accommodation entry provider.

Cross Examination of Summons/Arrest Memo issued by GST Officers is not allowable: Gujarat HC

SAZID ALI KHAN vs OFFICE OFPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1438

The Gujarat High Court held that cross examination by assesee on the Summons /arrest memo issued by GST officers. The court viewed that the assessee has an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the order by preferring an Appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

A division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi observed that the assessee has an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the order by preferring an Appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition with a liberty to the assessee to file statuary Appeal as provided under Section 107 of the GST Act.

15-Year Delay in Rewarding Informant for Tip-Offs Leading to Sales Tax Recovery: Bombay HC Orders ₹19L Payout

Darshan Singh Parmar vs TheUnion of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1439

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra Government to pay ₹19,44,802 to an informant who had provided valuable information and tip-offs that led to significant sales tax recoveries. The informant was due to receive rewards for his work, but had been made to wait for over fifteen years due to protracted litigation and bureaucratic delays.

The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that even though the authorities had acknowledged tax recovery attributable to the Petitioner’s information, they delayed reward disbursal on various pretexts.

Detention of 115g Gold Chain Without Issuance of SCN Under Customs Act: Delhi HC Directs Release as Bona Fide Baggage

AGYA SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1440

The High Court of Delhi, set aside the detention of a 115g gold chain for non-issuance of a timely Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the Customs Act, 1962, and directed its release as bona fide baggage under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that once goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a Show Cause Notice and provide a personal hearing. As per Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, a SCN must be issued within six months, extendable by another six months with proper justification. In this case, even after one year, no SCN was issued, rendering the detention impermissible.

“Unsustainable”: Madras HC quashes GST Order Passed in name of Wrong Entity Despite Mentioning Correct GSTIN

Tvl. Gopal Vinod Granites vsState Tax Officer (FAC) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1441

In an important ruling, the Madras High Court ruled that a GST order which was wrongly passed in the name of a wrong entity despite quoting the correct GSTIN of the petitioner is unsustainable.

The bench directed the petitioner to submit a reply along with supporting documents within four weeks and directed the department to issue a fresh notice with a minimum 14-day window for personal hearing before passing a new order strictly in accordance with law.

80% GST Amount Recovered Despite Passing Ex-Parte Order: Madras HC Sets Aside Order

M/s.G.P.Engineers vs The DeputyState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1442

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST order passed under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, citing a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a taxpayer must be given an opportunity of personal hearing before finalising an adverse assessment.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, considering the submissions of both sides, observed that passing an adverse order without providing an effective opportunity of personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory safeguard under Section 75(4) of the Act.

Delay in Filing GST Appeal Due to Proprietor’s Health: Madras HC Dismisses Petition, Allows to File Appeal as Partial Tax Recovered

Sixer Marketing vs The DeputyCommissioner (GST) Appeal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1443

The Madras High Court has allowed a proprietary firm a fresh opportunity to file an appeal against a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order after condoning delay caused due to the ill health of its proprietor.

The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall entertain and decide it on its own merits without insisting on the limitation period and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer.

Business Slowdown was Genuine Reason for Non Filing of Return: Madras HC Quashes GST Registration Cancellation with ₹10K Payment

M/s.AGN Lorry Service vs TheCommercial Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1444

The Madras HighCourt has set aside the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration and held that the petitioner had genuine reasons for failing to file returns due to a slowdown in their business. The Court also imposed ₹10,000 to be paid by the assessee to set aside the impugned order and ordered certain other conditions to be fulfilled.

The Single Bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the petitioner’s explanation for non-compliance was genuine and observed that the delay was due to a business slowdown. The Court ordered that the cancellation be set aside subject to fulfillment of specific conditions.

Jammu & Kashmir HC Allows GST Registration Revival on Condition of Clearing Tax, Penalty, and Interest Dues

Mohammad Shafi Chachoo vs UnionTerritory of J&K CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1445

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the revival of the cancelled GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration, provided he fulfills statutory obligations, including payment of tax, penalty, and interest.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority for restoration of his GST registration number within seven days, subject to compliance with the necessary formalities and settlement of all dues.

GST Tribunal Yet to Become Functional: Chhattisgarh HC Lets GTL Infrastructure Wait to File Statutory Appeal

GTL Infrastructure Limited vsThe State Of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1446

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed the assessee to await the constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal before pursuing its statutory second appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Court clarified that the statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the CGST Act shall remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal. However, it also clarified that if the assessee fails to file the appeal within the extended timeline once the Tribunal becomes operational, or if the required pre-deposit is not made within 30 days from the date of this order, the protection offered by the Court would lapse, and the State would be at liberty to proceed with recovery.

GST ITC Block Dispute: Orissa HC Says Writ Not Maintainable Amid Pending Departmental Action

M/s. TRANSTECH SOLUTION vs TheCommissioner CT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1447

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the blocking of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Rule 86A of the CGST/OGST Rules, 2017, ruling that the petition was premature given the pendency of departmental adjudication. It noted that the SCN adjudication is already pending.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, stated that the availability of alternate statutory remedies and ongoing investigation rendered the writ petition non-maintainable.

Interpretation of "going concern sale" under Regulation 32 of Liquidation Process Regulations must align with S.53 of IBC: Madras HC

Winwind Power Energy PrivateLimited rep by its Authorized Signatory vs The Assistant Registrar of Companies CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1448

In a recent case, the Madras High Court ruled that the petitioner company need not undergo the process of giving reply to the impugned show cause notices since, in any case, it is going to result only in launching of a prosecution against the petitioner company and its new management. It was observed that the interpretation of "going concern sale" under Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations must align with section .53 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code(IBC), 2016.

A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh viewed that the petitioner company need not undergo the process of giving reply to the impugned show cause notices since, in any case, it is going to result only in launching of a prosecution against the petitioner company and its new management. Just because there is a possibility of compounding the offences under Section 441 of the Act, that does not mean that the petitioner company has to compound the offences when they strongly feel that they have not committed any offence.

Order taking cognizance of offences under PMLA invalid in absence of pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing: Calcutta HC

Tutu Ghosh vs EnforcementDirectorate CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1449

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has held that order taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is invalid in the absence of pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya viewed that it is trite law that counse’s concession on law cannot be treated to be binding on the parties and their cannot be admission against the law. The question which has arisen before this Court is one of legal interpretation of a statute. The apparently contradictory stand taken by the ED before different courts is not a germane factor in the present adjudication and, thus, a non-issue. Hence, such divergence of stands taken by the ED before different forums/courts is hereby held to be immaterial.