China DevelopmentBank vs Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 101

In a recent judgement, thе Supreme Court оf India resolved а legаl dispute on сlassifying China Development Bank аnd othеr lenders as financiаl creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Cоde ( IBC ), 2016.

Аccording to the bench, if third parties defaulted, thе mortgagor, who wаs nоt а direct borrower, took оn thе duty оf releasing thеm from their obligations, whiсh became а guarantee.

GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR. vsM/S.JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 103

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, has held that the reduction in share capital of a subsidiary company and the resultant proportional reduction in the shareholding of the assessee fall within the purview of the term “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Court held that reduction in share capital significantly impacts the rights of shareholders and thus qualifies as a transfer. This decision provides much required clarity on the tax implications of share capital reduction and strengthens the interpretation of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.

Service Tax Levy on Salary Reimbursement for Seconded Employees: Supreme Court Division bench to Review Matter Soon [Read Judgement]

The Supreme Court will soon revisit the issue of service tax on secondment of employees, as a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar has issued notice to the Central Excise and Service Tax Department and tagged the matter with Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai v. Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd.

The dispute arises from an agreement under which Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Japan deputed employees to Mitsui India, with the Indian entity reimbursing salary and related costs. The tax department treated such reimbursements as consideration for manpower supply services, taxable under the reverse charge mechanism. The CESTAT found the arrangement to be similar to that in the NOS case and upheld the demand with interest and penalty.

The appeal is still pending before the Supreme Court. The previous listed date was 16th October 2025.

Contract Terms Agreed Between Banks and Credit Cardholders cannot be Rewritten by NCDRC: Supreme Court [Read Judgement]

The Supreme Court has held that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has exclusive authority over banking operations, including the regulation of interest rates, and that consumer forums cannot interfere with or rewrite contractual terms mutually agreed upon between banks and credit cardholders. Allowing appeals filed by major banks such as HSBC, Citibank, American Express and Standard Chartered, the Court set aside the NCDRC’s ruling which had held that charging interest rates exceeding 30% per annum amounted to an unfair trade practice.

The Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the complaint before the NCDRC was in the nature of public interest litigation and did not satisfy the requirements of a consumer dispute.

SHASHI BALA vs SHASHI BALA SINGH vs DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 106

The Supreme Court of India recently directed a Special Court to grant bail to a woman charged for non-bailable and cognizable offence, observing that the rigours of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA Act ) shall not stand effectuated in the matter wherein there is no seemingly near-end of the trial process.

Furthermore, observing that there is no possibility of the trial to conclude in the near future owing to the long list of witnesses yet to be examined, the Court directed the appellant to be produced before the Special Court within one week wherein the Special Court shall grant bail to the accused on the fulfilment of appropriate terms and conditions.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs CommissionerofCentral Excise Nashik Commissionerate CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 107

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India quashed excise duty demands against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), establishing that the price under a Multilateral Product Sale-Purchase Agreement (MOU) among Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) was not the sole consideration for the sale.

This decision is a significant precedent for the petroleum industry, reaffirming the principle that excise duties must consider the genuine nature of transactions rather than purely the price mechanisms in inter-company agreement.

SUPERWHIZZ PROFESSIONALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OFINDIA& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 108

The Supreme Court of India recently advised the Central Government to allocate additional judicial staff for Debt Recovery Tribunals ( DRT ) when added workload is imposed on the Tribunals in pursuance of retrieving data pertaining to debt recovery, to ensure that the regular functioning of the Tribunals are not affected by the added work.

The Supreme Court disposed of the Petition, advising the Ministry of Finance to provide extra staff to the Tribunals while calling upon them to collect and collate data, owing to their prior treatment of DRT staff as ‘subordinates’.

FOZIA RAHMAN vs BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 109

Moving further toward gender equality and inclusivity, the Supreme Court of India has mandated a 30% reservation for women lawyers in executive positions within the Delhi Tax Bar Association and the Sales Tax Bar Association, including the Treasurer’s post.

The decision is one step further in the direction of gender parity in the legal profession. Women lawyers have historically faced barriers to leadership in bar associations, which are instrumental in shaping the legal landscape. By reserving 30% of executive positions, including the Treasurer’s post, for women, the Supreme Court judgment also holds symbolic and practical significance. It sends a strong message about the judiciary’s commitment to fostering gender justice and inclusivity.

HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR vs THE STATE OFMAHARASHTRA& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 110

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India directed a real-estate developer to issue refund of an amount of ₹27,00,000 received from a buyer, against the Agreement to sell while observing that no statutory functionary of the Government may assume or exercise any powers that have not been explicitly conferred upon it.

Holding that “Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver”, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order, while restoring the previous order by which the CCRA allowed the Refund of Stamp Duty to the Appellant.

Authorised Signatories/Employees of Company not liable to GST Penalty u/s 122(1-A) and 137: Supreme Court in Maersk GST Fraud Case [Read Judgement]

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.vs SHANTANU SANJAY HUNDEKARI & ANR. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 111

The Supreme Court has held that employees of a company cannot be fastened with GST penalty liability under Sections 122(1A) and 137 of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion by the company itself. The ruling came in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Bombay High Court order that had quashed a show-cause notice issued to Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari, Senior Tax Operations Manager and authorised signatory of Maersk Line India, seeking to impose a GST demand of ₹3,731 crore on him personally.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan agreed with the High Court’s view that the GST law does not envisage vicarious liability of employees for the tax dues of a company and that penal provisions under Sections 122 and 137 cannot be stretched to impose such liability. Terming the demand against an employee as unconscionable and disproportionate, the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP, affirming that Hundekari, being a mere employee, could not be held liable for Maersk’s GST obligations, while leaving the broader question of statutory interpretation open.

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCERULINGS vs TIGER GLOBALINTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 112

The latest decision that has been passed by the apex court has stayed the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ) benefits granted by the Delhi High Court, which has caused a setback to Tiger Global in the Flipkart deal.

The Supreme Court has thus stayed the order of the Delhi High Court, which favoured Tiger Global International. In its judgement, the Delhi High Court had held that the transactions entered into by the assessee were not aimed at tax avoidance.

NIRANKAR NATH PANDEY vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 113

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India recently quashed a First Information Report ( FIR ) lodged against a former Excise Commissioner accused of possessing disproportionate assets from 1996 to 2020.

Referring to the decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court observed that when no offence is made out against the accused in terms of the FIR, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SMT. PRABHA JAIN CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 114

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to formulate a standardized framework for property title search reports and establish clear accountability for loan sanctioning officers.

The Bench further directed the RBI to formulate a comprehensive framework for employing certified professionals for property title searches; initiation of a uniform cost structure for property title search reports so as to avoid any arbitrary levy of charges; and reiterated the need to define liabilities for loan sanctioning officers in matters of oversight or negligence.

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SMT. PRABHA JAIN CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 114

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a pivotal judgment affirming that the scope of jurisdiction exercisable by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is limited to the adjudication of recovery proceedings under Section 13(4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), while clarifying the ineligibility of the DRT to decide on matters of property ownership or its sale or mortgage.

While dismissing the Appeal, the Bench laid reference to the Supreme Court decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2004) where the Apex Court reiterated the Civil Courts to be an appropriate forum for such matters and not the DRT whose authority under the SARFAESI Act is confined to the tenets of Section 13(4).

INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD vs GIRISH SRIRAMJUNEJA& ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 115

The Supreme Court observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, containing a proposed combination should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The Court rendered the present plan unsustainable and quashed the same. While allowing the set of appeals, the Court ordered the CoC to reconsider the appellant’s plan as well as any other resolution plan having the requisite CCI approval.

UPADHYAY VS UNION OFINDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 116

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation against the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) system on salaried individuals under Income Tax Act, while preserving the liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court.

“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits either way, the writ petition is dismissed as not entertained with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court”, said the bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

VINUBHAI MOHANLALDOBARIA vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 117

The Supreme Court has ruled that filing an Income Tax Return ( ITR ) after the due date but before prosecution does not eliminate liability for offenses under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court clarified that the offense under Section 276CC is committed the day after the due date for filing the return expires, not on the date of belated filing. Since the offense for AY 2013-14 (committed on 01.11.2013) occurred before the show-cause notice for AY 2011-12 was issued (27.10.2014), both offenses should have been treated as a “first offense.” The appeal was disposed of.

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSvs FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 118

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government’s appeal, affirming that lottery distributors are not liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that being no agency and no service rendered, service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the purchaser of the lottery tickets and the Government of Sikkim.

The bench held that being no agency and no service rendered by the respondents-assessees as an agent to the Government of Sikkim, service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the purchaser of the lottery tickets (respondents-assessees) and the Government of Sikkim. Gurmeet Singh appeared for the petitioner and Arjun Garg appeared for the respondent.

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs THEDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 119

The Supreme Court of India recently affirmed that the exception to penalty encompassed under Section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be applicable if the Assessee has declared the undisclosed income only during the stage of assessment proceedings and not during search, even if requisite taxes were paid voluntarily.

A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan observed that the Appellant had only disclosed part of the income during search, while ₹2,49,90,000 was admitted later during assessment, justifying the penalty. Being so, the Apex Court clarified that the term ‘found in the course of search’ is of wide amplitude and includes subsequent recoveries linked to the search. Since the income in question was discovered through sale deeds obtained as a result of the search, it was rightly categorized as undisclosed. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal levying a penalty of 10% on the ₹2,49,90,000 revealed during assessment proceedings.

THE STATE OFMAHARASHTRA & ORS. vs PRISM CEMENTLIMITED & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 120

The Supreme Court held that even though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government’s right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the accrued right of assessees won’t be affected. It would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court viewed that the State Government was not justified in issuing the impugned notices and taking away the granted benefit. Further held that the requirement of submission of Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ would apply prospectively after 11.05.2002 i.e., after the Finance Act of 2002.

UDHAW SINGH vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 122

The Supreme Court granted bail to the accused of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), citing prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of delay in the completion of the trial.

“The respondent-accused therein was arrested on 18th September, 2023 and the High Court granted him bail on 6th May, 2024. He was in custody for less than 7 months before he was granted bail. There was no finding recorded that the trial is not likely to be concluded in a reasonable time. In the facts of the case, this Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, there was no departure made from the law laid down in the case of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb and V.Senthil Balaji.”, the court observed

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS TRISHALA ALLOYS PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 123

The Supreme Court in an important judgement held that the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) is traceable to the statute and the same cannot be reduced without the statutory sanction. It was viewed that there was no corresponding provision in Punjab VAT Act which permitted availing of ITC at the lower rate of tax on the existing stock in trade though the purchase of such input was already made at a higher rate of tax thereby reducing the quantum of credit.

“The benefit of input tax credit is traceable to the statute. If the same has to be reduced, which will have an adverse civil consequence upon the beneficiary, it must have the requisite statutory sanction. In this case, the statutory sanction came on and from 01.04.2014 with the amendment of the first provision to Section 13(1) of the Punjab VAT Act. Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding that prior to 01.04.2014, there was no statutory sanction to allow applicability of Rule 21(8) on the stock in trade i.e. on inputs already purchased for which transactions stood concluded at a higher rate of tax.”, the bench ruled while upholding the ruling of High Court.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs M/S INTERNATIONALHEALTH CARE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 124

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a trust’s eligibility for Section 12-AA registration should be determined based on its proposed activities rather than the actual charitable work undertaken before registration.

The court held that requiring trusts to show actual charitable work before registration would defeat the purpose of Section 12-AA. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in favor of the respondent.

Insolvency Proceedings Against Personal Guarantor at Threshold Stage: Supreme Court removed HC’s Interdict

PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 126

Regarding tax recovery requests, the Supreme Court awarded PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd, the firm that operates the news portal NewsClick, a week’s temporary protection. The corporation was given permission to petition the High Court after the court dismissed its Article 32 plea.

In a plea filed by Newsclick against the Delhi High Court‘s decision to reject a stay on the income tax claim, the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh issued the aforementioned verdict. The Court published a notice in the SLP on July 8. On November 18, the Top Court ordered ICICI Bank to de-freeze the Agency’s bank accounts in accordance with the order dated August 9.

M/S HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFSTATETAX & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 127

The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment in a matter regarding the legality of extending the time limit for the adjudication of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) Show Cause Notices (SCN) through notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST Act, 2017 observing differing opinions by State High Courts on the subject.

While recognizing that Section 168A was intended to address extraordinary circumstances, the Court acknowledged that various High Courts had interpreted its scope differently. Addressing the cleavage of opinion among different High Courts as mentioned by Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar for the Petitioner, the Bench directed the issuance of notice to the Respondents on the present SLP as well as the prayer for interim relief, with the matter to be returned on 07.03.2025.

RAJAT vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 128

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking regulation of internet tariffs charged by telecom giants Jio and Airtel, stating that consumers have multiple options available in the market.

The PIL had named the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Reliance Jio, and Bharti Airtel as respondents. The petition’s dismissal comes amid ongoing discussions in the telecom sector regarding the frequency of tariff hikes.Industry leaders, including Vi CEO Akshaya Moondra, have justified recent increases, citing the need for returns on capital investments.

RADHIKA AGARWAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 129

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India affirmed that the concerned Commissioner of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department may authorize the arrest of an individual booked for offences under specific provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without a formal assessment Order, provided that the relevant reasons and evidences have been established to a ‘degree of certainty’.

Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that Agarwal’s arrest was legally sustainable, given the Commissioner’s satisfaction that a cognizable offence had been committed. However, it emphasized that such arrests must not be made arbitrarily and must be backed by clear and compelling reasons recorded in writing.

SANJAY DUTT & ORS vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 130

The Supreme Court has ruled that directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for wrongful acts unless there is clear evidence of their direct involvement in the alleged offence.

Accordingly, the bench quashed the complaint and set aside the High Court’s order. However, the Court clarified that if the relevant authorities believe that the company itself violated the conditions of the land development license, they are free to take appropriate legal action against the company.

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX & ORS vs M/SSTANDARD CHARTERED BANK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 131

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed the Special Leave Petition ( SLP ) filed by the Revenue against Standard Chartered Bank regarding the filing of TRAN-01 through another state’s Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) portal amid technical glitches.

Thus, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan refused to interfere with the judgment of the Telangana High Court and upheld the filing of TRAN-01 though another state’s GST portal when the designated portal experiences technical glitches.

DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANR vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT&ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 132

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India ruled that citizens are entitled to interest on refunds for lost stamp paper. The court also explained that the government cannot retain money without a legal basis.

In light of the above-referred cases, the court directed the government to pay Rs. 4,35,968 in interest on the refund amount and clarified that even in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, principles of restitution and fairness necessitate the payment of interest.

M/S.NARESH KUMAR GUPTA vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 133

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.

It further noted that Entry No. 28 of Schedule II, Part B clearly states that the MRP indicated on the mobile phone box with the charger serves as the exclusive basis for taxation. ‘Disjunctively’ does not imply that the Charger is a separately taxed item.

M/S. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 134

Based on its prior ruling in Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has granted leave in a petition against Punjab VAT rules. The case was scheduled for a final hearing on March 27, 2025, by the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.

A possible change in India’s indirect tax jurisprudence is being closely watched by stakeholders in the business and legal communities as the final hearing is scheduled for March 27. While an affirmation might support the separate taxing of packaged items, a reversal of the Nokia verdict might result in substantial tax relief for corporations.

R. MADHAVAN PILLAI vs RAJENDRAN UNNITHAN. S & ORS.ETC. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 135

The Supreme Court, in a recent case, held that High Court could not have passed an order to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) merely on the basis of a prima facie conclusion that a predicate offence has been committed.

The Court observed that since breach of trust and cheating is a predicate offence as per the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a direction to register ECIR was warranted.The bench left it to the ED to take a call on the question of initiating proceedings under the PMLA.

SARANGA ANILKUMARAGGARWAL vs BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 136

In a recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that penalty procedures under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”) are exempt from the interim moratorium provided by Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

While dismissing the appeal, the court held that the moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws and the Appellant was directed to comply with the penalties imposed by the NCDRC within eight weeks.

POWER INFRASTRUCTUREINDIA vs POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 137

The supreme court while setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order that rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , expressed the wonder on action of spending a great deal of time and energy crafting a 17-page ruling on a delay condonation application, despite having a large backlog of cases pending. The Supreme Court criticized the approach of NCLAT.

As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the NCLAT’s November 7, 2023 judgment, granted the plea for a delay condonation, and instructed the NCLAT to hold the appeal hearing in compliance with the law.

ARUN RAMESHCHAND ARYAvs PARUL SINGH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 138

The Supreme Court recently excluded a wife from paying stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”) if she got an apartment as part of a settlement with her husband in a divorce dispute.

The court noted that the disputed flat is clearly the focus of the agreement and, as such, is a component of the proceedings before this court. Therefore, the exclusion stipulated in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 will be applicable, and stamp duty will not be required for the registration of the flat in question in the respondent-wife’s sole name.

NOWHERA SHAIK & ANRvs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 139

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a final ultimatum to Nowhera Shaik, founder and managing director of Heera Gold Exim Pvt Ltd, to deposit ₹25 crore with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) within a period of three months or face revocation of her current bail.

The court scheduled the next hearing for July 14, 2025, by which time Shaik must either comply with the Supreme Court’s ultimatum or face immediate legal consequences.

OM PRAKASH GUPTA vs PR.ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL &ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 140

The Supreme Court of India in a recent matter laid reference to the obiter in a prior decision where it was held that a provisional bank account attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST), 2017 Act ceases to have effect once a final order under Section 74 is passed.

In light of the observations made, the Supreme Court proceeded to dispose of the Special Leave Petition and all related pending applications.

Cheque Dishonouring Case become Invalid when cause of Action arose after Declaration of Moratorium under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court

VISHNOO MITTAL vs M/SSHAKTI TRADING COMPANY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 141

The Supreme Court has held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be continued against a former director if the cause of action for cheque dishonour arose after a moratorium was imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. An appeal was filed by Vishnoo Mittal, a former director of the corporate debtor, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for cheque dishonour.

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that although the cheques were dishonoured prior to the moratorium, the statutory cause of action under Section 138 arises only after the expiry of 15 days from the issuance of the demand notice. Since the moratorium and appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional had already taken effect before the cause of action matured, the appellant had no control over the company’s affairs or bank accounts. Holding that directors cannot be held liable for acts they are legally incapable of performing during the moratorium, the Court quashed the proceedings and allowed the appeal.

M/S CITICORP FINANCE(INDIA) LIMITED vs SNEHASIS NANDA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 142

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in favor of Citicorp Finance (India) Limited, holding that a borrower cannot claim consumer protection rights without privity of contract with the lender.

Emphasizing that Citicorp Finance’s liability under the Agreement for Sale was limited to settling the dues of the complainant, with ICICI Bank, which was quantified at ₹17,87,763, the Apex Court held that in no scenario could this liability exceed the total loan amount of ₹23,40,000 sanctioned to Patel. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Vaibhav Goel & Anr.vs Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax & Anr. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 143

The Supreme Court of India held that once a resolution plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), no further recovery of dues including statutory dues owed to the Central Government can be initiated if such claims were not part of the approved plan.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT, ruled that the tax demands for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 were unenforceable, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.

NATIONAL FINANCIALREPORTING AUTHORITY vs SNEHAL N.MUZOOMDAR & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 144

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court permitted the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to continue audit regulatory proceedings against chartered accountants (CAs) in cases where no Audit Quality Review Reports (AQRRs) have been prepared and no final orders have been passed and stayed the execution of final orders already issued.

The Court also observed that NFRA intends to file further special leave petitions in related matters where the Delhi High Court had similarly intervened. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in the week commencing April 28, 2025.

THE UNION OF INDIA& ORS vs BRIJ SYSTEMS LTD & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 145

Recently, the Supreme Court observed the growing concerns over the denial of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) due to clerical or arithmetical errors in GST return filings and issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) to examine the matter further.

To assist in a more thorough resolution, the court appointed Senior Advocate Mr. Arvind P. Datar as Amicus Curiae. The court sought CBIC’s response on the possibility of enabling post-deadline corrections for genuine mistakes in GST returns. The case is scheduled to be heard again in the week commencing April 28, 2025.

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 146

The Supreme Court of India recently directed the Customs Department to establish comprehensive testing facilities to prevent prolonged litigation arising from classification disputes of imported goods.

The Court emphasized that while expert opinions and laboratory reports play a crucial role in classification determinations, they cannot be treated as conclusive if they fail to account for all stipulated criteria.

I.K. MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. vs THE STATEOFRAJASTHAN & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 147

The Supreme Court of India recently resolved a nearly five-decade old dispute regarding the undervaluation of the share price of a Chartered Accountancy (CA) firm, ordering the levy of 6% interest per annum on the estimated share price from 1975 onwards and another 9% interest per annum on the share price from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

Furthermore, the Bench directed the Government to pay the amount due towards the enhanced value of the shares after adjusting the amount already paid out, within a period of 2 months from the date of the judgment.

ASHOK SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 148

In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a creditor is not required to prove their financial capacity at the outset to establish a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

In light of the observations made, the Supreme Court proceeded to impose a fine of ₹32,00,000 on the Accused which is to be paid within four months failing which the sentence imposed by the trial court in the prior stage would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

RAJKUMAR BARTHWAL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 149

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by customs officer Raj Kumar Barthwal, who had sought an investigation into an incident from 2019 at the Kolkata airport involving Rujira Banerjee, wife of Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, and her sister Maneka Gambhir.

Faced with this directive and sustained judicial skepticism from the Apex Court, Barthwal withdrew the petition. The Court formally dismissed the PIL as withdrawn, while granting liberty to the Union of India or the Customs Department to pursue the matter through appropriate legal channels, if they chose.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE VSSANGEETASAILESH BHOOLABHAI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 150

The Supreme Court of India recently condoned delays in the Income Tax Department’s appeal against the Bombay High Court’s quashing of reassessment notices issued to an Assessee, while calling on the Revenue to follow the guidelines laid down in Union of India & Ors. vs Rajeev Bansal (2024).

In light of such observations, the Supreme Court directed that the Assessing Officers shall dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by the Court in the Rajeev Bansal judgment, while reaffirming that aggrieved parties may pursue the appellate remedies in law except for the issues which have already reached finality on the basis of the law.