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

Manek Steel LLP vs Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1450

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court ruled that a GST cancellation order is invalid if it relies on documents that were not shared with the taxpayer or mentioned in the show cause notice.

The division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the show cause notice was vague and failed to explain the basis of the cancellation. The court also observed that referring to a document that was not provided to the taxpayer or cited in the notice was a breach of the principles of natural justice.

BPL-KPL(JV) vs The State ofJharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1451

The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed challenging a scrutiny notice and consequential show cause notice under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) Act, by directing the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the GST department.

Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar , considering the parity in facts, noted that the petitioner had not disputed the precedent cited by the State. Following the earlier approach, the Court disposed of the present writ petition by allowing BPL-KPL (JV) to submit its explanation within two weeks from the date of the order.

NITIN ENTERPRISES vs. IncometaxOfficer Ward and Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1452

The Telangana High Court recently quashed an income tax reassessment notice, noting that the Department failed to initiate proceedings as per the mandatory faceless procedure, in violation of binding judicial precedents on the issue.

The Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda took note of its own ruling in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (supra) where similar notices had been quashed on identical grounds. It was further noted that several High Courts across the country had ruled against non-faceless reassessment proceedings in line with the statutory framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022.

M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha SwamyVari Devasthanam vs Assessment Unit CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1453

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court quashed an income tax show-cause notice (SCN) and assessment order noting that the Income Tax Department failed to adhere to its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which mandates that a minimum period of seven days be provided to the assessee to respond to the SCN.

The Division Bench ofJustice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda rejected the Department’s justification, referring to the Department’s SOP dated 03.08.2022 which mandated that the exception for curtailing the minimum seven-day period to issue reply applied only in cases where the limitation deadline for assessment was imminent.

M/S RAU S IAS STUDY CIRCLE vsGOODS AND SERVICE TAX GSTO 41 DELHIDEPARTMENT TRADE TAXES GOVERNMENT OF NCT OFDELHI & ANR.

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1454

The High Court of Madras,grants time to RAU’s IAS Study Circle to file a reply to the Goods and Service Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN), noting that the institute was unable to respond due to tragic events, including the CEO’s custody.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed that the matter be adjudicated as per law after considering the reply. It also clarified that the validity of the impugned notifications remained open and would depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court case in SLP No. 4240/2025 and this Court’s decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024.

P.C. HARI vs SHINE VARGHESE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1455

The Kerala High Court has held that any loan amount advanced in cash exceeding ₹20,000 is not a “legally enforceable debt” under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if it violates Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment authored by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, resulted in the acquittal of the accused in a cheque bounce case involving ₹9 lakh.

Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that this ruling will apply prospectively and only where the defence specifically raises the issue of violation of Section 269SS and the complainant fails to provide a lawful explanation.

Rajalingam Nagarathinam vs ThePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1456

The High Court of Madras, allowed appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation of Income Tax Act,1961, with delay condonation after noting that the petitioner had delayed in filing Form 67, required to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC ), due to an inadvertent error

Justice C.Saravanan held that the petitioner’s writ petition lacked merit, as the revision application under Section 264 was not maintainable against an intimation issued under Section 143(1). It clarified that such intimation could instead be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act.

Commissioner of Income Tax vsM/s.Ganga Textiles Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1457

The High Court of Madras, held that the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961, was time-barred, as the two-year limitation period must be computed from the date of the original assessment order,not the reassessment order.

Chief Justice K.R.Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the original assessment order was passed on 31.08.2006 and had dealt with the issue under Section 43B. The reassessment was done only to compute capital gains from the sale of land and building and did not touch upon the Section 43B deductions. Hence, the original order on that issue remained intact and did not merge with the reassessment order.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1458

The High Court of Karnataka, disposed of the appeal filed by Himalaya Drug Company after holding that the assessment was time-barred under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice T.M.Nadaf noted that in an earlier judgment dated 04.06.2025 in ITA No. 571/2017, it had already held the assessment order to be time-barred under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Since the order on merits was passed later, the Court held that examining it was not necessary.

M/s.Nandhi Fabrics vs vs TheDeputy Commissioner (CT) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1459

The Madras High Court has ordered to condone a 1-day delay in filing a GST assessment appeal after noticing that the delay was caused as the petitioner was hospitalised due to jaundice. The Court set aside the rejection order issued by the DeputyCommissioner (CT) and directed the authority to hear the appeal on merits.

The Single Bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner’s contention is genuine and that the delay was not deliberate.

Md. Intekhab Alam and Another vsAssistant Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1460

The High Court of Orissa observed that any money/property recovered constitutes 'proceeds of crime’ unless same is disproved at trial and upheld the proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) for offrncr of money laundering relying on the evidence.

A single bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that quashing of PMLA proceedings at this stage would create an anomalous situation because, in the event, it is proved in the course of trial that the proceeds of crime has been generated through the schedule offence for which the trial is pending qua other co-accused person, for the reasons that illegal mining activities have been conducted in the name of the Petitioner No.2, which is the precise reasons for quashing of the proceedings against the Petitioner No.1 by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2022 passed in CRLMC No.2272 of 2021.

Mst. Sundri vs The Jammu &Kashmir Bank Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1461

Mst. Sundri vs The Jammu & Kashmir Bank LtdThe Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that a secured creditor may use Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, without first notifying the surviving borrower's legal heirs.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar disagreed with the contention that before invoking Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the secured creditor should have issued fresh notice to the legal heirs of the borrower so as to provide them an opportunity to pay the dues in full. Otherwise also, such an argument cannot be accepted for the reason that despite lapse of about two years, the Petitioners have not discharged in full the liability towards the Respondent Bank.

Sai Construction & Buildersvs Commissioner, State Goods and ServicesTax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1462

In an important ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration and allowed the revocation of the order under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the lapse of the statutory limitation period.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr. G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra passed the judgment, observing that the complexities of the GST law often remain beyond the grasp of the common man whose priority remains the sustenance of his day-to-day business.

M/s Agrawal Agro Centre vs StateOf Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1463

The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a suo motu revision order issued under Section 108 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act ( GST ), 2017, stating the absence of reasons and lack of proper authorization at the time of issuance.

The Court held that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion,” and an order passed without assigning reasons is lifeless and unsustainable in law.

TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD.& ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1464

In a sharp rebuke to hasty tax enforcement, the Gujarat High Court has quashed a GST penalty order and corresponding show-cause notice issued on the same day as the interception of goods, declaring the action a "flagrant breach of principles of natural justice."

The division bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, however, was unconvinced by the department’s rigid interpretation. It noted that the law allows seven days for a reply to the show-cause notice, but authorities acted with undue haste.

Vilas Prabhakar Lad vs UniqueIdentification Authority of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1465

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court criticised and imposed penalty on multiple government bodies, including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the GST department, and Union Bank of India, for their prolonged inaction in an identity theft case involving the misuse of a Mumbai resident’s Aadhaar and PAN details.

A division bench of Justices M. S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain found that the bank had failed to authenticate the Aadhaar details as required under the RBI's Master Directions and Aadhaar regulations. The court also observed that none of the authorities had filed a First Information Report (FIR) despite having sufficient grounds to do so.

Sayan Biswas vs DeputyCommissioner of Revenue CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1466

In an important ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities are permitted to issue separate notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/WBGST Act for the same tax period, provided the basis of each notice is distinct, however, it quashed the notice which raised the issued which already dealt in S. 74.

JusticeRaja Basu Chowdhury, after noting Section 73 and 74, stated that “I am of the view that the respondents cannot be faulted for having issued two separate notices in respect of the selfsame period, since, the basis for issuance of notices are different.”

Somnath Chatterjee vs State ofJharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1467

In a recent case, the Jharkhand High Court was hearing a writ petition against Member of Parliament for illegal income tax evasion by hiding huge property. The court held that this writ petition is not amounts to Public Interest Litigation(PIL).

A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar viewed that once the Court has expressed its view holding the nature of allegation as has been made against Shri Dhullu Mahto as not the Public Interest Litigation, hence, if that order has been referred to raise the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition, then such issue cannot be said to be baseless.

AJAY YADAV vs DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1468

The Delhi bench of the High Court granted bail under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA, 2002] against arrest for wrongful loss of Rs 951.88 Cr by fraud citing the prolonged custody. The Court viewed that the continued detention of the applicant cannot be justified on the sole of ground of statutory bar under Section 45.

A single bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant coupled with the absence of any real likelihood of the trial concluding in near future, the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA must yield to the constitutional safeguard under Article 21.

UTKARSH ARORA PROP OF M/S AURAINTERIOR HARDWARE vs ADDITIONALCOMMISSIONER CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1469

The HIgh Court of Delhi, dismissed a writ petition against a Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand citing allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) but granted the petitioner one month to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the supplier firms were fake and created only to issue invoices, and referred to its earlier ruling in Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors., where it held that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used in cases of fraudulent ITC because of the burden on the exchequer and the impact on the GST system.

Prosanta Kumar Saha vs Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1470

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a GST order passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act 2017 for the tax period covering 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018.

The Court directed the officer to grant the petitioner or his representative an effective opportunity of personal hearing and to consider the reply already filed before deciding the matter afresh.

Tvl Jai Nidhi Automation vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1471

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order passed on the ground that the final order included five additional issues that were not part of the original show cause notice and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that such procedural irregularity required judicial interference, particularly when the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to defend itself. The Court, therefore, quashed the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISEDIBRUGARH vs M/S NUMAL SAIKIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1472

The Gauhati High Court has condoned a 265-day delay in filing an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Dibrugarh, against a CESTAT ruling in favour of a service provider.

The Division Bench comprising Chief JusticeMr. Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, while acknowledging the prolonged lag in filing the appeal, held that the reasons stated by the department were sufficient to justify condonation in this case. It was further observed that for the reasons stated in the application, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed.

Tvl.Saraswathi Traders vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1473

The Madras High Court sets aside a GST ( goods and services tax ) order passed without consideration of the reply submitted by the assessee, which was filed beyond the time limit granted by the GST department.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, acknowledged the slight delay in submission of the reply but stated that the principle of fairness required the authority to consider any reply that existed on record before passing an adverse order, even if submitted late.

M/s.Aircel Limited vs DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1474

While granting the relief to Aircel Limited, the Madras High Court has quashed the income tax penalty proceedings initiated against the company under Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court, comprised of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, observed that the show-cause notice dated 27th March 2024 was uploaded on the income tax portal (in the order it is mentioned as GST portal, might be a clerical error) at 8:29 PM, granting the petitioner less than 24 hours to respond, with a reply deadline set for 6:09 PM on the very next day.

M/s.Shami Industries vs TheDeputy State Tax Officer-II CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1475

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has permitted the assessee to file a delayed appeal against a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order, subject to a 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount in cash or electronic cash ledger.

Justice C. Saravanan, acknowledging that the delay in filing the appeal was only marginal, invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend an opportunity to the petitioner.

S.P.FAIZAL vs STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1476

In a recent ruling, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer solely because the selling dealer failed to remit the tax to the government.

The Full bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran, Gopinath P., and Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that the purchasing dealer had fulfilled all legal requirements. The court found no provision in the KVAT Act that imposes a duty on the purchaser to verify the seller’s tax payment.

Suchismita Maji vs AssistantCommissioner of CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1477

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that the appellate authority under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law can allow additional documents to be submitted during appeal proceedings if it helps ensure fair disposal of the case, even if the strict conditions under GST Rule 112(1) are not met.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that while the appellate authority had referred to Rule 112(1), it had not considered the wider powers available under Rule 112(4), which permits the production of additional evidence to decide the appeal fairly. The judge held that the rejection of the certificate was mechanical and not based on a full reading of the applicable rules.

Manoj Gupta vs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1478

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a man accused in a Rs. 48.79 crore GST fraud case, stating that he had already spent over six months in custody and further detention was not justified.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Manisha Batra observed that the allegations were serious, the offence was punishable with a maximum of five years, the evidence was mostly documentary in nature, and the prosecution had not sought custodial interrogation. The court also observed that the risk of tampering with evidence was minimal as the documents were official and the witnesses were mostly government employees.

Ms R A And Co vs The AdditionalCommissioner Of Central Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1479

The High Court of Madras,quashed a consolidated Good and Service Tax (GST) assessment order covering six financial years, holding that separate show cause notices and assessment orders are required for each year under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act,2017.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy considered arguments from both sides and examined Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The main issue was whether a single assessment order could be passed for multiple financial years.

M/s Lord’s Bhaskar Ventures vsThe Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1480

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a GST registration cancellation order that was challenged more than six months after it was passed, holding that no procedural error was committed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal.

The division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that the Appellate Authority had acted within its jurisdiction and committed no procedural error in rejecting the appeal as time-barred. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, which held that statutory authorities cannot extend limitation periods beyond what is expressly allowed.

M/s.Pennar Industries Limited vsThe Commissioner of Customs (Export) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1481

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that the customs department must reconsider an exporter’s application for renewal of a self-sealing licence when earlier violations have been settled and the exporter has not been given a chance to explain their case.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the customs authorities had not taken into account important facts, such as the dropping of one case and the payment of dues in the other.

SHIV MURAT DWIVEDI vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1482

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the attachment of properties valued at approximately ₹1.5 crore by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that were in the ownership and possession of a person accused of accruing the assets through proceeds of immoral trafficking of women and other criminal activities.

The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the nature and extent of the materials on record, including personal diaries, receipts, and testimonies, pointed to a pattern of systematic criminal behaviour.

Mr. Ayyagari Krishna Rao VSNational Financial Reporting Authority CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1483

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to issue show cause notices for alleged professional misconduct by auditors for financial years prior to its constitution on October 1, 2018.

The Bench comprising Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, in a common order, observed that the core issue was whether NFRA could investigate misconduct for financial years prior to 2018.

M/S YAKULT DANONE INDIA PVTLIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1484

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside an order dismissing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) appeal on the grounds of non-submission of a self-certified copy of the order appealed against and allowed the petitioner to file the required document within 15 days and directed the Appellate Authority to restore the appeal and adjudicate it on merits.

A division bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sudeepeti Sharma observed that the facts aligned with the previous rulings. The court also observed that the respondent was unable to deny or raise any distinction in the present case.

SHRI SARABJEET SINGH vs THECOMMISSIONER OF SGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1485

The Delhi High Court has directed to process a taxpayer's application for fresh GST registration and issue a No ObjectionCertificate (NOC) and held that the taxpayer cannot be deemed a defaulter while an appeal against the demand order is pending with pre-deposit paid.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the order in original dated 28th December 2023 was under challenge in appeal with pre-deposit paid, invoking an automatic stay on recovery under Section 107(7) of the CGST Act.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GSTINTELLIGENCE vs RAKESH KUMAR GOYAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1486

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) challenging the grant of bail to an accused who was deemed to have orchestrated a scheme to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹61.02 crore under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The respondent, represented by Shadman Ahmed Sidiiqui asserted that the grant of bail was justified as it followed the filing of the complaint, thus constituting a substantial change in circumstances from earlier bail rejections.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

M/s. Sai Srinivasa Industries vsThe Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1487

The Madras High Court has directed to consider the representation dated 23.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, for clearance of warehoused dry cashew nuts.

A single bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan observed that prima facie, the petitioner has a case for recovering the advanced amount through legal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and there are no clear indications of remedy under Section 68 of the Customs Act.

The Commissioner of Income Taxvs Hyundai Motor India Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1489

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment on an issue that was already raised and answered during the original assessment amounts to a change of opinion, which is not permitted under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that once a query is raised and answered during assessment, reopening the same issue later is a change of opinion.

BHUPENDER KUMAR vs ADDITIONALCOMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION CGST DELHI NORTH& ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1490

In a surprising move, the Delhi High Court has upheld a Penalty against a GST Consultant for alleged fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit through 54 fake firms.

The Bench of Justices Prathiba MSingh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that, “A perusal of the SCN reveals the malaise of availment of fraudulent ITC from and passing on of the same to non-existent firms and entities. A perusal of the SCN clearly contains all the allegations against the four individuals, including the Petitioner. The statement of the Petitioner was also recorded and the gist of the said statement is also set out in the said SCN.”

Suchismita Maji vs AssistantCommissioner of CGST & CX, BankuraDivision, Bolpur Commissionerate &Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1491

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that the appellate authority under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law can allow additional documents to be submitted during appeal proceedings if it helps ensure fair disposal of the case, even if the strict conditions under GST Rule 112(1) are not met.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that while the appellate authority had referred to Rule 112(1), it had not considered the wider powers available under Rule 112(4), which permits the production of additional evidence to decide the appeal fairly. The judge held that the rejection of the certificate was mechanical and not based on a full reading of the applicable rules.

Manoj Gupta vs Union of Indiaand others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1493

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a man accused in a Rs. 48.79 crore GST fraud case, stating that he had already spent over six months in custody and further detention was not justified.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Manisha Batra observed that the allegations were serious, the offence was punishable with a maximum of five years, the evidence was mostly documentary in nature, and the prosecution had not sought custodial interrogation. The court also observed that the risk of tampering with evidence was minimal as the documents were official and the witnesses were mostly government employees.

Raaj Jaiswal vs DirectorateGeneral of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1494

The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fraud through the creation of fake firms and availing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), stating that the investigation was complete and no tampering of evidence was likely.

A single bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen observed that custodial investigation was no longer necessary, and there was no scope for evidence tampering. The court further observed that rejecting the anticipatory bail would serve no useful purpose.

P.C. HARI vs SHINE VARGHESE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1495

In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court held that any debt arising out of a cash transaction exceeding ₹20,000, in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be treated as a "legally enforceable debt" for the purpose of prosecuting under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, referring to the government’s vision of promoting a digital economy and curbing cash transactions, stated that legitimizing such large cash dealings through judicial pronouncements would defeat the legislative intent behind the Income Tax provisions.

SUNIL WAHAL vs NATIONALFINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY NFRA & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1496

The Delhi High Court recently directed a petitioner who challenged a Show Cause Notice issued by the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) in relation to alleged professional misconduct during the statutory audit of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., to file their objections towards the same.

The Delhi High Court Bench presided by Justice Sachin Datta allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the NFRA and directed that the petitioner be entitled to file objections to the NFRA Show Cause Notice within the stipulated period, which shall be duly considered by the authority in accordance with law

J R Metal Chennai Limited vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1497

The Madras High Court has upheld a detention order issued by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities and dismissed the company’s plea challenging the proceedings.

The Court noted that the vehicle transporting TMT bars had deviated from the standard delivery route by over 41 kilometers, and this deviation could not be justified on technical or logistical grounds.

Nisha Nandakumar vs TheAssistant Commissioner of CGST & CentralExcise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1498

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order passed in the name of a deceased assessee, despite the department being informed of his demise.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, hearing the case, stated that any legal order passed against a dead person is “non-est in law” and unenforceable. He noted that once the death was brought to the notice of the department, the officials ought to have issued the show cause notice to the legal heirs, rather than proceeding mechanically against the deceased.

M/s.Lakshmi Road and Infra vsThe Deputy State Tax Officer-2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1499

The Madras High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order passed stating a complete lack of application of mind and failure to consider the taxpayer’s detailed submissions.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that a cryptic remark such as “Verified the reply details to Your reply not accepted” cannot be a valid substitute for a reasoned order, particularly when replies and documents have been furnished by the taxpayer.

MARCOWAGON RETAIL PVT. LTD vsUNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1500

In the matter of 200% penalty on the expired e-way bill under Goods and Services Tax (GST) for the zero rated exports to UAE, the Gujarat High Court reduced the penalty amount from 200% to Rs. 25,000.

Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N. Ray observed that “Considering the scheme and the scope of the GST Act and the Rules when there is a contravention of Rule 138 which is procedural in nature, without intention to evade tax, Section 129 provides for levy of penalty whereas in the facts of the case though there is a contravention computation of penalty would fail in absence of any tax payable by the assessee - the petitioner.”

EQUITY INTELLIGENCE AIF TRUST vsTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES &ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1501

The Delhi HighCourt delivered a major decision holding that CBDT Circular 13/2014 must be read down under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act. The Court clarified that Explanation 1’s requirement for beneficiaries to be expressly stated and identifiable must be read in light of SEBI regulations and the principle of determinability of investor shares.

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 of the respondent no.2/Board for Advance Rulings was quashed and set aside and simultaneously, the clarification contained in CBDT Circular No.13/2014 dated 28.07.2014 was directed to be read down to conform to the above analysis and conclusion.

Nanda Kishor Saha vs The Unionof India & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1502

The Calcutta High Court has quashed an order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, holding that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN) reply even if submitted after the prescribed time limit must be considered if filed before final disposal of the proceedings.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury disposed of the writ petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order covering the period July 2017 to March 2018, and the subsequent rejection of his appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act on limitation grounds.

Garden Reach Shipbuilders &Engineers Limited vs Marine CraftEngineers Private Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1503

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a 2023 order that had earlier annulled an arbitral award. The case arose with a contractual dispute between Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited (GRSE) and Marine Craft Engineers Pvt. Ltd., which had undertaken repair work at GRSE's shipyard. Although the respondent completed the job, payments were allegedly not made by GRSE. Marine Craft filed a writ petition and later approached the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council, seeking redress under the MSME Development Act, 2006.

The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated April 5, 2023. It directed that the case be freshly placed before the Commercial Division Bench of the High Court having jurisdiction over arbitration petitions. Noting that the matter dates back to 2018, the Court also permitted the parties to seek expeditious disposal.

Tvl.Shri Bharathi Weaves vsCommercial Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1504

The Madras High Court set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order that was passed a day before the scheduled personal hearing.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, presiding over the matter on July 21, 2025, ruled that the premature issuance of the assessment order amounted to a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting a complete remand of the matter for reconsideration.

M/s.The EIMCO KCP Ltd vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1505

The Madras High Court restored the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) appeal which was wrongly withdrawn due to an inadvertent mistake by the petitioner’s auditor.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the error was bona fide and warranted judicial intervention in the interest of justice.

M/s Jai Bajrang Steel vs Stateof Rajasthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1506

The Rajasthan High Court has refused to intervene directly against the blocking of the electronic credit ledger ( ECRL ) of input tax credit ( ITC ) without prior hearing, but has directed the taxpayer to approach the statutory appellate authority under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ).

The Division Bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma noted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal under the statutory scheme.

Mr. Tej Jain vs ChiefCommissioner Of Cgst (Jaipur Zone) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1507

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) cannot go beyond the specific grounds raised in an appeal, and accordingly expunged remarks made by the authority on Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Anand Sharma agreed with the petitioner’s contention, observing that an appellate authority cannot expand the scope of an appeal or decide questions not raised before it.

Antarjyami Mohapatra vs CentralBoard of Direct Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1508

The Orissa High Court recently set aside an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing plausibility of double taxation of the same income upon finding that the petitioner had already disclosed the concerned income in a subsequent assessment year.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found merit in the petitioner’s plea of procedural unfairness and observed that the assessment had been completed without giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to substantiate that the transaction had already been taxed in the subsequent year.

The Deputy Commissioner OfIncome Tax vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1509

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously dismissed tax case against South Eastern Coalfields 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.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously dismissed tax case against South Eastern Coalfields 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.

Prakash Chand Jadaik vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1510

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.

"NEELGIRI MACHINERY THROUGHITS PROPRIETOR MR. ANIL KUMAR vsCOMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ANDOTHERS"

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1511

The Delhi High Court set aside two demand orders holding that the Show Cause Notices (SCN) were not directly visible to the appellant on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) portal, and there was lack of clarity on part of the Department in ensuring due service of notices.

The bench further observed that the GST portal functions differently for the department and for taxpayers. Consequently, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file its reply and be heard on merits while the demand orders were liable to be set aside.

Mr.ChinmayaSeth vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1512

The Delhi High Court in its recent ruling, directed the Customs Department to provisionally release export goods that had been detained since 13 January 2025, noting that the delay in issuing the seizure memo and holding the goods without proper procedure as “completely unacceptable”.

The bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted the concern of the Department but stated that if such apprehension existed then suitable steps should have been taken by the Department but cannot hold up export goods in this manner.

KANWALJEET KAUR vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (34) 1DELHI & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1513

The Delhi High Court in its recent ruling clarified the limitation period for issuing reassessment notices under the amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, following relaxations under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA).

The Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the Revenue’s contentions and clarified that the effect of the TOLA was merely to extend the life of proceedings which were alive and subsisting on 20 March 2020. It cannot be construed as reviving the right to initiate proceedings which stood barred by limitation on that date.

DHRUV MEDICOS PVT LTD vs DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST CIRCLE 5,AUDIT-I, DELHI & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1514

The Delhi High Court has ruled that finalising an audit report without duly considering the taxpayer's reply violates the mandate of Rule 101(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The court provided clarity on the rule.

The Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, took cognizance of this procedural lapse. The bench noted that “A perusal of the said provision would show that the same uses the language ‘may inform the registered person’ and ‘the said person may file his reply’. The question would be whether the information and the furnishing of the reply is mandatory or not.

VIJAY KUMAR SAND vs THECOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1515

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) of the Customs Department to expedite the adjudication of an appeal filed against an Order-in-Original that had allowed redemption and re-export of confiscated gold.

The Court instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to conclude the appeal proceedings within three months, following a personal hearing for the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

KURBAN vsTHECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS&ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1516

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that Customs Authorities cannot detain goods without issuing a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ), and ordered the release of three gold bars seized from a passenger subject to duty payment, avoiding penalty and redemption fine. The court limited the warehouse charges to 50%.

The Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, relying on its previous decisions in Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs and Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, reiterated that detention of gold without issuing an SCN is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.

SMTI JINNY DAIMARY vs THE STATEOF ASSAM CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1517

While granting relief to taxpayer facing cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns, the Gauhati High Court has clarified that GST authorities are well within their powers to drop such proceedings if the taxpayer furnishes pending returns and clears all dues, including applicable interest and late fees.

Justice N. Unnikrishnan Nair said that “this Court is of the considered view 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 so empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.”

Eastern Metec Pvt. Ltd vs Stateof West Bengal & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1518

In an important ruling, the Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by the GST Appellate Authority after it failed to consider a taxpayer’s input tax credit (ITC) claim arising from a bank’s misclassification.

The court after noting the nature of the disclosure and its potential impact on the merits of the ITC claim, held that the matter warranted fresh adjudication.

KAMAL KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS vsTHE STATE OF ASSAM CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1519

In a recent order, the Gauhati High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail plea filed by three individuals who had sought protection from arrest after receiving a notice to appear following a search and seizure operation GST Act directing them to appear on a new date.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, while disposing of the anticipatory bail application, held that the nature of the notice did not indicate any immediate threat of arrest. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' apprehension and stated that the statutory process should be followed without assuming coercive consequences where none are indicated.

Tvl Sri Ramakrishna Agencies vsThe Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1520

The Court quashed the second assessment order issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, observing that an earlier order had already been passed under Section 74 for the same period, and directed that any differential tax liability must be addressed through the original proceedings, subject to statutory permissibility.

The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Ramakrishna Agencies, challenged the impugned assessment order dated 20.08.2024, issued under Section 73 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The grievance stemmed from the fact that the petitioner had already been subjected to an assessment order under Section 74 of the Act for the same period on 16.12.2023.

Harvinder Singh vs State ofPunjab and others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1523

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition and upheld the liability of a retired partner for GST dues of the firm M/s Foreigners Auto Zone due to failure in providing timely intimation of retirement to the Commissioner.

A division bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sudeepeti Sharma observed that the petitioner admitted no intimation was given upon retirement in 2021. The court rejected the argument that intimation was solely the firm's duty, emphasizing Section 90's clear provision for joint and several liability.

M/s. Untag Fashions PrivateLimited vs UCO Bank CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1524

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court upheld the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) order dismissing the appeal of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) against the action of the bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. It was viewed that MSMEs could not be permitted to misuse the process of law for thwarting the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act by raising the plea at a belated stage.

A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the appellants chose not to avail of the Circulars governing the field in relation to restructuring of credit facilities of MSME. They allowed the securitization proceeding to run its full course upto the DRAT stage. DRAT passed the order of dismissal of the appeal on November 15, 2022.

PRABIR PURKAYASTHA vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1525

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court granted bail, considering prolonged investigation of offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) against director of Newsclick studio.

A single bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna viewed that even though, the investigations are pending since 02.09.2020, no prosecution Complaint has been filed by the ED in the Court. Considering the prolonged investigations, and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the Applicant/Accused shall be admitted to Anticipatory Bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

MOHAMMAD ANAS THROUGH SPAMOHAMMAD SARFARAZ vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS& ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1526

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court directed the filing of a statutory appeal on finding a failure to provide a personal hearing even after 6 months under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta considering the fact that in this case the items are not jewellery of personal use or a personal effect, but is instead, a gold bar, which may be used for commercial purposes, the Court is not inclined to release the same to the Petitioner.

Paramhans vs Religare HousingDevelopment Finance Corporation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1527

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana relegates the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for a challenge on the notice issued under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(SARFAESI).

A bench of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice and Justice Sanjiv Berry declines interference on merits in view of the decision of the Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, 2010; Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, (2024).