A RAJENDRA vs GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 151

The Supreme Court held that the incident which triggers the running of the limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 is the date of pronouncement of the Order, and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing conclude s, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website.

Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here

The bench rejected the appeals against the orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as time-barred. The Court also held that when no certified copy was applied, the benefit of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act cannot be claimed.

Supreme Court upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan For DHFL

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED vs 63MOONSTECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 152

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Resolution Plan put forth by Piramal Capita and Housing Finance for the former Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) and decided that Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd would receive the money recovered from the fraudulent activities at Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL).

The bench overturned the NCLAT order that ordered the creditors of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) to reevaluate the resolution plan put forth by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance and upheld the resolution plan that was approved by the COC in 2021, according to which a national value of Rs. 1 was assigned to potential recoveries of Rs. 45,000 crores.

NEHA ENTERPRISES vs COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 153

The Supreme Court of India held that a dealer is not entitled to claimInput Tax Credit (ITC) on sales that are exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax (UP VAT) Act, 2008, even if such sales are made to manufacturer-exporters using Form-E.

The court dismissed the civil appeal and held that the prohibition under Section 13(7) is a legislative mandate that cannot be overridden by policy considerations or administrative circulars.

SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE vs ADITYA SARDA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 154

The Supreme Court of India ruled that bail under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, which deals with corporate fraud, cannot be granted unless the twin conditions prescribed under Section 212(6) are strictly satisfied.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders and directed the accused to surrender before the Special Court within one week. The court dismissed appeals against anticipatory bail granted by the Special Court itself in a few cases where no non-bailable warrants or proclamation proceedings were involved.

STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 155

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), a preliminary investigation is not a necessary step before filing a corruption complaint against a public official. It further stated that the mere fact that no preliminary investigation was carried out prior to the filing of the FIR does not exonerate a case against a public official.

The court observed that drawing sustenance from the case of CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021) it was specifically stated that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the alleged disproportionate assets before the filing of an FIR.While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the impugned order.

KUSHAL KUMAR AGARWAL vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 156

In case of applicability of section 223 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) for PMLA cases that started investigation before July 1 , 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice returnable on 9 May 2025 and stayed further proceedings in the complaint.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice returnable on 9 May 2025 and stayed further proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner until further orders.

In the final judgment passed on May 9, the court ruled that impugned order dated 20th November, 2024, is set aside only on the ground of non-compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS. Therefore the bench directed the appellant to appear before the Special Court on 14th July, 2025, so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.

STATE OF KARNATAKA vsT.N. SUDHAKAR REDDY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 157

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a preliminary enquiry is not a mandatory precondition for registering an FIR against a public servant accused of corruption, provided the source information is credible and sufficiently detailed.

The court held that mandating a preliminary enquiry in all corruption cases would undermine anti-corruption efforts and delay the investigative process. The court explained that the law does not prescribe a rigid procedural sequence when credible evidence of wrongdoing is available. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and restored the FIR registered against the respondent.

Supreme Court Quashes Enforcement of Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included in IBC Resolution Plan

ELECTROSTEEL STEELLIMITED vs ISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 158

The Supreme Court quashed an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

As a result, the Supreme Court halted the execution proceedings that were still continuing before the Commercial Court in Bokaro and overturned the contested orders of the High Court and the Executing Court.

M/S OSWALPETROCHEMICALS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 159

The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, then the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer.

The court observed that a copy of the test report has to be furnished to the manufacturer. In such circumstances, extracting the gist of the test reports, that too in the show-cause notices, would clearly be in breach of Rule 56 (2) and Rule 56 (4) of the Central Excise Rules. Such a procedure is not contemplated under Rule 56.

VISA COKE LIMITED vsM/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 160

The Supreme Court upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor’s Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC.

Reference was drawn to the case of Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla, (2001), where, while dealing with the requirement of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court held that a notice issued upon the Director of the Company amounts to notice to the Company. The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the NCLT for fresh consideration on merits.

VINEET JAIN vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 161

The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that bail should be the norm, not the exception, in cases involving offences under Section 132 of theCentral Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. In a recent ruling, the apex court expressed concern over the denial of bail to an accused despite the non-heinous nature of the alleged offence and the documentary nature of evidence.

The bench emphasized that the evidence in the case was purely documentary, and the accused had no prior criminal antecedents. Noting the absence of any special factors that could justify prolonged custody, the Court concluded that continued detention was unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order and granted bail to the accused.

HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 162

The Supreme Court has admitted the petition challenging the validity of notifications issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) under Section 128A of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act. The matter will be taken up soon by the apex court.

Aggrieved by this decision of the high court, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Supreme Court, where it was filed on 1st February 2025. The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan is expected to consider the matter on 14th May 2025.

Update as per December 2025: The matter is still pending before the apex court.

KALYANI TRANSCO &M/S.BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 163

In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot review the actions taken by statutory authorities under other laws.

The NCLAT’s observations and findings regarding the ED’s provisional attachment order were deemed “coram non judice” by the court, meaning they were made without legal authority or jurisdiction.

TATA STEEL LTD. VS RAJKUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. CITATION: TAXSCAN (SC) 164

On May 7, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), has no jurisdiction to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory limit of 45 days (30 days plus a 15-day condonable period) prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.

The Court reiterated its stance from Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (2021), emphasizing that NCLAT has no authority to condone delays beyond 15 days after the initial 30-day period. The IBC’s appellate framework is deliberately stringent to ensure swift and certain resolution of insolvency cases.

C.T. KOCHOUSEPH vsSTATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 165

In a significant ruling with implications for state taxation powers, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Addressing concerns about potential overreach, the Court underlined that the tax is not imposed on the manufactured product or on the act of dispatch, but strictly on the purchase of raw materials that have not been subjected to tax under standard sales channels.

COMPETITION COMMISSIONOF INDIA vs SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 166

The Supreme Court of India ruled that volume-based discounts offered by dominant enterprises do not, by themselves, constitute abuse of dominance under competition law.

The Court also found that the CCI’s refusal to permit cross-examination of key witnesses undermined the evidentiary integrity of the proceedings and amounted to a violation of natural justice.

NOBLE RESOURCES vsUNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 167

The Supreme Court has ruled that crude degummed soybean oil (CDSO) qualifies for the customs-duty waiver available under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. ending a years-long dispute between the trade house Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt Ltd and the customs department.

The Court set aside the High Court order, quashed the duty demand and confirmed Noble Resources’ entitlement to exemption from basic customs duty, additional duty and special additional duty.

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITEDvs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 168

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently affirmed that product support services provided by Coal India Limited are directly connected to the importation process and must be considered when calculating the customs duty under the Customs Act.

“The services provided were directly relatable to the import of the goods by way of product support service which is covered by Sections 14(1) and 14(1A) of the Customs Act read with Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules”, the bench observed.

CENTRAL BOARD OFINDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS vs M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED &ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 169

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that the businesses can rectify GST(Goods and Services Tax) returns even after prescribed due dates observing that human mistakes are normal. It has dismissed the petition filed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ).

Rejecting the CBIC’s plea, the court held that there was no revenue loss in allowing such rectifications and thus saw no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which it found to be “just and fair.” The CBIC has been directed to re-examine the provisions and timelines currently in place for correcting bonafide errors in GST filings.

UNION OF INDIA &ORS vs M/S GIRISH PRAVINBHAI RATHOD (JAY AMBEY) & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 170

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Gujarat High Court decision on the classification of ‘fusible interlining cloth’ under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tariff, thereby affirming that such fabric does not fall under Heading 5903.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP on two grounds: (i) a 225-day delay in filing the petition that was not satisfactorily explained, and (ii) lack of merit in the challenge to the High Court’s ruling.

M/S PATANJALI FOODSLIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 171

The Supreme Court has provided a best ending to the 23-year old customs dispute with regards to the refusal of the customs department to refund the duty which was recovered via bank guarantee.

Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the refund of customs duty amounts recovered by coercive encashment of bank guarantees. It overturned the 2016 judgment of the Gujarat High Court that had denied Patanjali Foods’ ( former Ruchi Soya) refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Chief Commissioner ofCentral Goods and Service Tax & Ors. vs M/s. Safari Retreats PrivateLimited & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 172

The Supreme Court has slammed the brakes on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department’s last-ditch attempt to reopen the landmark Safari Retreats ruling, dismissing the Centre’s review petition and leaving intact developers’ right to claim input-tax credit (ITC) on the construction cost of commercial properties that are leased out.

Shital Fibers Limitedvs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 173

The Supreme Court held that Section 80-IA (9) of the Income Tax Act does not alter the computation of deductions under other provisions and further ruled that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.

The court held that assesses do not have to subtract the Section 80-IA deduction before calculating the Section 80-HHC deduction, i.e., both the deductions can be calculated separately.

STATE OF KERALA &ANOTHER vs ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 174

In a ruling against Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. And Ors, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and affirmed the state’s power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”

The bench explained that there is no constitutional overlap between central and state levies because the service tax levied by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not clash with state entertainment taxes.

M/S. SRIBA NIRMANCOMPANY vs THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 175

The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by a construction company confirming the ruling of Andhra High Court upholding the penalty imposed for non-filing and non-payment of Goods and Services Tax Returns ( GSTR ). It confirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling confirming the penalty imposed by the department.

The apex court found nothing to interfere with the Andhra High Court, thus upheld its ruling and confirmed the penalty for non-filing of GST returns and its Non-payment.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA& ANR vs K-9 ENTERPRISES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 176

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision which ordered to unblock Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ) as blocking did not provide mandated pre-decisional hearing under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Rule 86A.

UNION OF INDIA &ANR vs M/S YASHO INDUSTRIES LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 177

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India and CGST authorities against the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in the case of Yasho Industries Ltd vs Union of India & Ors.

The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, on May 19, 2025, condoned the delay but dismissed the SLP on merits, effectively upholding the Gujarat High Court’s ruling that payment of pre-deposit via the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) is valid and sufficient compliance under Section 107(6)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF CENTRAL TAXES & ORS. vs M/S. GEMINI EDIBLES AND FATS INDIA LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 178

The Supreme Court of India summarily dismissed a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, refusing to interfere with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein it rectified a notification concerning the availability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) refunds in cases of mismatch in the tax credit ledger.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam of the Andhra Pradesh High Court carefully examined the relevant legal framework, including Section 54 of the CGST Act and observed that the restrictions imposed by Notification No. 9/2022 were prospective, effective only from 18.07.2022, and could not prohibit claims relating to earlier periods.

HDFC BANK LIMITED vsSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 179

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, does not require a detailed description of the specific role played by a director to establish vicarious liability.

The bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan disagreed with this rigid interpretation and observed that the substance of the complaint showed sufficient material to infer that the respondent was indeed in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OFGOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 180

In a recent order, the Supreme Court of India temporarily stayed further action on a massive ₹5,712 crore tax notice issued to First Games, a real-money gaming (RMG) platform owned by Paytm.

The legal battle started after the GST Council made a major decision in August 2023. It announced that all forms of online gaming, along with casinos and horse racing, would now be taxed at 28%. What made things worse for gaming companies was the government’s decision to apply this rule not just going forward from October 1, 2023, but also retroactively from July 2017.

M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA)PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 181

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified the retrospective applicability of clarificatory circulars issued against a statute, while proceeding to sustain the 1% All Industry Rate (AIR) Customs Duty Drawback on soyabean meal exports prayed for by the Appellant.

The Bench observed that the Circular does not expand or alter the scope of the previous notifications, but merely resolved certain ambiguities that remained following the promulgation of the concerned Notification. Since no new right or benefit was created, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of 1% customs duty drawback as indicated under the notification was always existent, and Soyabean Meal exporters, even if they had availed CENVAT, from 2008 onwards.

M/S DALMIABHARATLIMITED vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 182

In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India granted a stay in favour of Dalmia Bharat Limited and its subsidiaries, Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited and Dalmia Power Limited, against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated April 23, 2025.

At the hearing on May 30, 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar issued notice and granted an interim stay on the impugned High Court order. The court permitted the petitioners to serve notice via the Standing Counsel in addition to the usual modes and tagged the matter with a related pending SLP.

ANTRIXCORPORATIONLIMITED vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(ENFORCEMENT) &ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 184

The Supreme Court of India stayed a Rs. 317.5 crore VAT demand raised by the Karnataka Commercial Taxes Department against Antrix Corporation Ltd., the commercial arm of ISRO, in a dispute concerning the tax treatment of satellite transponder lease charges.

The bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan stayed the June 2025 recovery notice and took the Karnataka government’s endorsement on record. The court observed that the matter was already pending and under its consideration. It issued notice on Antrix’s interlocutory application and listed the appeals for hearing in the second week of August.

The court’s interim order provides temporary relief to Antrix while keeping open the larger question of whether leasing satellite transponder capacity constitutes a service or a sale under VAT law. The outcome is expected to have huge implications for the taxation of satellite-based services and the balance between central and state tax regimes.

M/S SriVenkateswaraConstructions vs State of Odisha & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 185

The Supreme Court of India recently set aside an order of the Orissa High Court where it called for a re-tender in respect of the Karangadihi Sand Quarry. The division bench of the apex court held that the submission of a valid Income Tax Return and GST clearance certificate was sufficient compliance for bidder qualification under the tender conditions.

It was affirmed that the certificate from the GST authority sufficiently indicated compliance, despite carrying standard caveats. The apex court found no illegality in the process adopted by the revenue authorities, and observed that the appellant’s bid was substantially higher, which could have benefited the State exchequer.

The respondent, on the other hand, failed to submit an official GST no-dues certificate and merely provided a GST portal screenshot, which did not satisfy the tender conditions

TENORMACENTERPRISESPVT. LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 186

The Supreme Court of India is set to examine whether the reversed transitional CENVAT credit, which was previously carried forward under GST, can be refunded in cash, following an appeal filed by Tenormac Enterprises.

The bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan held that, prima facie, the High Court could not have granted a stay after holding that it lacked jurisdiction and disposing of the matter as not pressed. The court issued notice to the revenue and stayed the High Court’s order of 12 June 2025. It clarified that the revenue remains free to file an appeal under Section 35-L, which would be considered on its own merits.

DIRECTORGENERAL OF GOODSAND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE & ANR. vs SUPER PRODUCTS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 187

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Directorate General of GST Intelligence’s (DGGI) SpecialLeave Petition (SLP) seeking a review of the Delhi High Court’s judgment that quashed a “negative blocking” of the taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger (ECrL) under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules.

The Delhi HC had earlier held that Rule 86A serves only as a provisional safeguard for tax authorities—not for permanent suspension or recovery of input tax credit (ITC) and, crucially, negative blocking of the ECrL (creating a debit balance when none existed) is impermissible.

Win for Ford India: Supreme Court Allows Transitional Credit Even If Not Reflected in Electronic Credit Ledger on Refund Date

UNION OF INDIA &ORS vs M/S FORD INDIA (P) LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 188

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Ford India’s right to claim GST refunds using transitional credit, even if the credit was not reflected in the electronic credit ledger on the refund date.

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that the judgments relied upon by the High Court had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2025, and the department’s attempt to challenge the same issue again lacked merit.

SBI Wins Before CESTAT on Service Tax Demand for Interchange and Free ATM Services: Supreme Court to Hear Related Appeal Together

COMMISSIONER OF CGSTAND CENTRAL EXCISE vs STATE BANK OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 189

In a recent ruling,the Supreme Court of India, noted State Bank of India (SBI )’s win before Customs,Excise andService TaxAppellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) on service tax demand for interchange and free Automated Teller Machine (ATM) services and directed that the appeal be heard along with a related pending matter.

Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R.Mahadevan condoned the delay, issued notice, and directed that the current matter be heard together with the pending civil appeal. Counsel for SBI appeared and accepted notice, waiving formal service.

Revenue cannot ‘Negatively Block’ Tax beyond Extent of GST ITC available in E-Ledger: Supreme Court declines to Interfere with Delhi HC Ruling

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALGOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS.Petitioner(s) vs KARUNA RAJENDRA RINGSHIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 190

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed a key principle within the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law, refusing to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment that prohibited the “negative blocking” of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in a taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) beyond the level of credit actually available within the ledger.

A Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that the issue of negative blocking had already been conclusively decided in the judgment of the Delhi High Court Best Crop Science (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (2024) where it was observed that Rule 86A of the CGST Rules is a temporary, emergent measure, empowering authorities to block ITC only if there is reason to believe that such credit is fraudulently availed or ineligible.

Invocation of Revision Powers under GST to Deny Refund of Excess ECL/ECrL Amounts: Supreme Court dismisses Revenue SLP

UNION OF INDIA vs M/S.HCC VCCL JOINT VENTURE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 191

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India challenging a Delhi High Court order that quashed a Revenue authority’s decision to withhold a refund of Rs 5.5 crore from the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) of a taxpayer under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

In dismissing the Union of India’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning and declined to interfere with its order. The apex court, however, left open the possibility for the Revenue to proceed with fresh proceedings as per law, preserving all rights of the parties.

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 192

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the levy of entry tax on United Spirits Ltd., a major manufacturer and supplier of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and beer, under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax (Amendment) Act, 2007.The apex court dismissed the appeals filed by United Spirits challenging the imposition of entry tax on its products entering the local market in Madhya Pradesh.

The judgment confirms that manufacturers like United Spirits, who initiate the movement of taxable goods into a local area, are liable for entry tax regardless of intermediary storage or distribution arrangements.

M/S. STEMCYTE INDIATHERAPEUTICSPVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 193

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment confirming that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, constitute “Healthcare Services” under the Finance Act, 1994. The Apex Court thus ruled that such services are exempt from service tax, setting aside adverse orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties for the disputed period, and ordered the refund of the Rs. 40 lakh deposit.

UNION OF INDIA &ANR. vs M/SB BRAUN MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 194

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the department’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court’s ruling that minor clerical mistakes-such as an incorrect address or GSTIN on invoices-should not deprive a company of its lawful Input Tax Credit (ITC).

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has taken up the department’s appeal in M/S B. Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. The Delhi High Court had overturned the original order denying ITC solely because the invoices bore the Bombay office GSTIN instead of the Delhi Office.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONLIMITED& ORS vs M/S SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 195

The case originated from a kerosene dealership that became a partnership firm in 1989, with Kanhaiyalal Sonthalia and his sons as partners. Sonthalia, holding a 55% interest, passed away in 2009, leading to disagreements among his heirs concerning succession and the future constitution of the firm. Indian OilCorporation Limited (IOCL), the principal dealer, pressed that all legal heirs must join the partnership or expressly refuse to do so before supporting a new partnership structure.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed IOCL’s appeal as devoid of merit, insisting that statutory corporations should not undertake actions that risk disrupting ongoing businesses or consumer interests based on narrow policy interpretations.

VIPIN SHERSINGH AGARWALvs STATEBANK OF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 196

The Supreme Court of India upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)’s decision holding that a Section 95 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),2016, application was filed within the limitation period, as the borrower’s acknowledgment of debt extended the timeline.

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice K.V. Viswanathan found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, noting that the acknowledgment of debt was not denied in the rejoinder and that the application was filed within the limitation period.

CENTRAL BOARD OFINDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS vs M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED &ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 197

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) to revisit and re-evaluate the statutory provisions and timelines that govern the correction of bona fide errors. It stressed that the timelines should be realistic.

The court stated that “The petitioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, must re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors. Time lines should be realistic, as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when the benefit of tax paid is denied. The purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because he is denied the benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently, he has to make a double payment.”

VIPIN SHERSINGH AGARWALvs STATEBANK OF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 198

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India, upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)’s decision holding that a Section 95 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),2016, application was filed within the limitation period, as the borrower’s acknowledgment of debt extended the timeline.

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice K.V. Viswanathan found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, noting that the acknowledgment of debt was not denied in the rejoinder and that the application was filed within the limitation period.

JAYKISHOR CHATURVEDI& ETCvs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 199

The Supreme Court of India ruled that SEBI is not required to issue a separate demand notice to recover interest on unpaid penalties, as the original adjudication order itself serves as a valid demand for payment.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that SEBI's adjudication orders serve as enforceable demand notices and that there is no requirement for SEBI to issue an additional notice to trigger interest liability.

M/S SONALI POWEREQUIPMENTS PVT.LTD vs MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 200

The Supreme Court has held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act. A time-barred claim can be referred to conciliation, as the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, including through a settlement agreement that can be arrived at through the conciliatory process.

A two-judge bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the decision of the High Court to the extent of the Limitation Act being applicable to arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act and provided our reasons for the same. With respect to conciliation proceedings, on the other hand, held that they do not attract the applicability of the Limitation Act.