Annual Tax & Corporate Law Digest 2025: Complete Supreme Court Cases [Part III]

THE UNION OF INDIA vsM/SHERITAGE FOODS LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 201

The Supreme Court of India ruled that flavoured milk should be classified as milk under the GST law and taxed at 5%, rejecting the Union Government’s attempt to classify it under a higher tax slab of 12%.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale observed that the issue had already been addressed in a previous case, SLP(C)(D) No. 17602 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 May 2025. The court observed that there was no need to reconsider the issue, as the classification of flavoured milk as milk had already been accepted in law.

DHANASINGH PRABHUvsCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 202

The Supreme Court has held that a firm's partners can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, even if the firm itself is not named as an accused. The Court emphasised that a partnership firm has no separate legal identity from its partners, and a notice or prosecution against the partners is sufficient to proceed under the law.

The Supreme Court held that under Sections 25 and 26 of the Partnership Act, 1932, partners are jointly and severally liable for the firm's acts, including the issuance of dishonoured cheques. The Court further held that issuing a notice to the partners is deemed to be sufficient notice to the firm.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONvs M/SSHREE NIWAS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 203

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) challenging a Calcutta High Court order that mandated continued kerosene supply to a reconstituted partnership firm. The Court strongly criticised IOCL for acting in a “high-handed” and arbitrary manner, contrary to principles of justice and equity.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that IOCL had not terminated the dealership and misread its guidelines by refusing to recognise the reconstituted firm.

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

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

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

M/S ASP TRADERS vsSTATE OFUTTAR PRADESH & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 205

The Supreme Court recently passed a noteworthy judgment, holding that the payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and penalty under protest by an assessee does not absolve the proper officer of the statutory obligation to pass a reasoned order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and ServicesTax Act, 2017.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court and directed the proper officer to pass a speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 and upload its summary in Form GST DRC-07 within one month. The Court further clarified that the right to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act must be preserved through proper adjudication, even if payment has been made.

G. Kalawathi Bai (Died)vs G.Shashikala (Died) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 206

The Supreme Court of India has referred a legal issue involving the registration of sale deeds executed through a power of attorney (PoA) to a larger bench. The issue revolves around whether a PoA holder who executes a sale deed is legally regarded as the executant for the purposes of registration under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, disagreed with this approach. They noted that a PoA holder, when executing a sale deed on behalf of the principal, does so not in his or her own name but expressly in the name of the principal.

ALL INDIA JUDGESASSOCIATION vsUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 207

In a recent judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India restored the requirement of three years’ actual legal practice for candidates appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations. Overruling earlier precedents that allowed fresh law graduates to sit for the exams, the Court emphasized that practical courtroom experience is essential for aspiring judges.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, overturned a two-decade-old policy that allowed fresh law graduates to enter judicial service without any prior experience at the bar. The Court observed that the experiment of recruiting "raw graduates" had "not proved to be a successful experiment."

IL & FS FINANCIALSERVICES LIMITED vs ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 208

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment has ruled that entry in a company's balance sheet amounts to a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of theLimitation Act, 1963 and allowed the plea of IL&FS for a default of ₹55.45 crore.

The court held that the Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20 was admittedly signed by the board of directors on 12.08.2020. This date was within the subsisting period of limitation for the reason that taking 01.03.2018 as the commencement of limitation, limitation ordinarily would have continued till 28.02.2021. Since an acknowledgment came into effect on 12.08.2020, limitation would have stood extended till 11.08.2023. However, Covid-19 intervened resulting in this Court passing a series of orders extending the period of limitation. The relevant order applicable in this case is the order of 10.01.2022.

UNION OF INDIA &ANR vs M/SINDIA CEMENTS LIMITED ETC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 209

The Supreme Court of India, has clubbed multiple writ petitions involving the question of whether service tax could be levied on royalty, District Mineral Foundation Trust ( DMFT), and National Mineral Exploration Trust ( NMET ) payments, to be heard together.

Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the transfer petitions and disposed of all pending applications.

M/S BIMLA PULP ANDPAPERS PVTLTD & ANR vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST COMMISSIONERATE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 210

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the legal question of whether an appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act is empowered to remand a case back to the assessing officer.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan acknowledged that the High Court order had been passed with the petitioner’s agreement but clarified that the issue raised was a genuine legal question.

M/S MOHD NAFISUDDIN vsUNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 211

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition which challenged the review order of the Allahabad High Court regarding the service of an excise adjudication order purportedly delivered through speed post.

The apex court said that “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), we see no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

JSW STEEL LIMITED vsSANJAYSINGHAL & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 212

The Supreme Court Of India in its order issued "order of status quo" on pending National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) proceedings over JSW Steel Limited. The Court explicitly mentioned that it arises out of an "impugned final judgment and order dated 13-05-2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.

A two judge bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice SatishChandra Sharma viewed that the interest of justice would be served and in order to avoid future legal complications in the matter, an order of status quo of the proceedings pending before the Court issued the National Company Law Tribunal.

THE COMMISSIONER OF GSTAND CENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 213

The Supreme Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT ) order allowing Cenvat Credit in favour of JSW Steel and dismissed the appeal for condoning gross delay of 309 days in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.

A division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the appeal in the absence of good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 01-03-2024 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX & ANR vs SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 214

The Supreme Court of India, instructed Assessing Officers (AO) to decide objections in income tax reassessment proceedings in line with the law laid down in the Rajeev Bansal judgment.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, in line with above ruling, in the present matter, disposed of the petitions and directed the assessing officers to decide the objections in accordance with the law laid down in the Rajeev Bansal judgment.

HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 215

The Supreme Court of India ruled that loans can be treated as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) for tax deduction purposes only if interest remains unpaid for more than 180 days, as specified under Rule 6EB of the Income Tax Rules.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan refused to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court and dismissed Special Leave Petitions. Then, the corporation went for a review petition.

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX &ANR vs IBM INDIA PVT LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 216

The Supreme Court of India reopened a previously dismissed case concerning the tax treatment of payments made by IBM India Pvt. Ltd. to IBM Philippines, to determine whether such payments are taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Indian tax law despite the provisions of the India-Philippines Double TaxationAvoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan agreed to reconsider the matter. They observed that the earlier dismissal on the ground of low tax effect was inadvertent, as the case involved important legal issues. The Court allowed the application for restoration, condoned the delay in filing the application, and reinstated the Special Leave Petition for hearing on merits.

COMMISSIONER OF CGSTAND CENTRAL EXCISE vs SUNDER INTERNATIONAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 217

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Excise Department failed to establish that Sunder International was engaged in the illegal assembly of television sets at its Bhiwandi warehouse, and therefore affirmed the CESTAT’s decision quashing the central excise duty demand.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the matter and observed that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the tribunal. The Supreme Court found no credible evidence to support the department’s claim and upheld the CESTAT’s findings.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OFGOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED& ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 218

At the heart of the storm is Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which is a Bengaluru based gaming company that in 2022 was slapped with a ₹21,000 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). However, today the dispute is far larger than just one company.

The courtroom, presided over by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, is now the venue for a consolidated batch of more than 70 petitions involving not only online gaming platforms but also casinos, horse racing entities, lottery operators and state governments.

UNION OF INDIA vs LATIMSOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 219

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld a decision of the Bombay High Court, confirming that importers are entitled to re-credit of notional Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) debited on duty-free imports made under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).

A bench of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar, declined to interfere with the High Court's order. While the Court condoned the delay in filing, it dismissed the petition on merits, upholding the Bombay High Court’s ruling and thereby reinforcing the entitlement of importers to reclaim notional SWS in such cases.

M/S. BOKNA RAIYATROJGAR COMMITTEE vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 220

The Supreme Court of India upheld the cancellation of GST registration of Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee, ruling that the firm had failed to file its appeal within the prescribed time and did not offer a sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 months.

The court agreed that there was no sufficient cause for the 17-month delay and held that the GST law provides no scope to condone such extended lapses. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and upheld the High Court’s ruling.

PRINCIPAL ADDITIONALDIRECTOR GENERAL Petitioner(s) DIRECTORATE GENERAL GST INTELLIGENCE & ORSvs M/SBANGALORE UNIVERSITY

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 221

The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence ( DGGI ), challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed show-cause notices (SCNs) issued to Bangalore University for service tax demands on affiliation fees.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, thereby affirming the non-taxability of such fees as part of the educational services rendered by universities.

UNION OF INDIA vs M/SFIRMENICHAROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 222

The Supreme Court in a recent case dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP)in absence of merit. As it was evident from the High Court ruling out of which the case arose that the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) refund claim got paid by revenue along with interest.

A two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan found that there is an inordinate delay of 169 days in filing of the special leave petition, which has not satisfactorily been explained. After going through the Special Leave Petition , the court did not find any merit in the same and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vsAZALEA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 223

The Supreme Court refused to condone 215 days in filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) against order upholding merger of short term capital loss of 108.75 Cr. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner - Revenue and the two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay.

The SLP arose out of the impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2024 in ITA No. 136/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The Commissioner impugns the order dated 28 January 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] and insofar as it has proceeded to reject the appeal of the Department which had raised the issue of Short Term Capital Loss originating from the forfeiture of share warrants of India Bulls Infrastructure Ltd.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX vs REVMAX TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 224

The Supreme Court in its recent case disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) relying on ‘Union of India & ors v. Rajeev Bansal’ where the court upheld the validity of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).

A two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan disposed of the petitions filed by the Revenue. The assessee will be governed by reasons discussed in the said Judgment. The assessing officers will dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by the Court. Thereafter, the assessee who is aggrieved will be at liberty to pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, save and except for the issues which have been concluded in the Judgment.

UNION OF INDIA &ORS vs M/SGIRISH PRAVINBHAI RATHOD (JAY AMBEY) & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 225

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court ruling on the classification of fabrics partially coated with plastics and bearing designs due to an unexplained delay of 225 days in filing the Special Leave Petition.

A two judge bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-06-2024 in SCA No. 17980/2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which was in favour of Girish Pravinbhai Rathod (Jay Ambey) & Anr.

THE INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT vsANURAG BAGARIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 226

In a recent decision, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, dismissed an Income Tax Department Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging a December 2023 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed multiple criminal proceedings against businessman Anurag Bagaria, his family members and their companies under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court has upheld the High Court’s finding that mere filing of returns later revised under departmental advice and delayed payment of tax cannot, without more, constitute a criminal “attempt to evade” tax.

PRADEEP GOYAL vs UNIONOF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 227

The Supreme Court has declined to create a system for tracking services that foreign companies supply in India under the GST regime, dismissing a public interest petition on the issue.

A bench led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan heard Advocate Charu Mathur, who argued that platforms like Facebook or OpenAI deliver services here without any way for Indian authorities to monitor or tax them, resulting in a substantial revenue shortfall. Rather than entertain the petition, the Court suggested treating it as a formal representation to the GST Council.

M/S FIS GLOBAL BUSINESSSOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST GURGAON & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 228

The Supreme Court of India recently allowed a petitioner to withdraw its Special Leave Petition (SLP) impugning a 2024 judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that dismissed the petitioner’s claim of funds for gross delay in approaching the Court.

The Supreme Court granted the request and dismissed the SLP as not pressed while explicitly granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court for further proceedings.

COMMISSIONER OF GST ANDCENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S. FAIVELEY TRANSPORT RAIL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 229

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, confirming that pantographs used in railway locomotives are to be classified as railway parts under Chapter Heading 8607 and not as general electrical equipment under Chapter Heading 8535.

The department appealed the CESTAT ruling to the Supreme Court. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan condoned the delay in filing but found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s well-reasoned order. The appeal was dismissed.

M/S LALIT METALCORPORATION vsUNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 230

The Supreme Court directed the assessee to file a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) as ruled by the Gujarat High Court (HC).

A two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “we see no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. It shall be open for the assessee to prefer statutory appeal in accordance with law. If the issue of limitation arises, the Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the fact that the assessee was pursuing his remedy before the High Court and later before this Court.”

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALTAX GSTvs M/S OCL INDIA LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 231

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that excise duty on stock transfers to sister units must be calculated under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules at 110 percent of the cost of production.

The court also agreed with the Tribunal’s view that Rule 8 was the correct rule to apply in this case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

THE COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL TAXMEDCHAL GST CUSTOMS vs M/S DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 232

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition(s) for Special Leave (SLP) to Appeal as there was no case for interference made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Telangana in its order upheld the debonding application of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories from which the SLP was filed

A two judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering the SLP arose out of Final judgment and order dated 13-11-2024 in CEA No. 13/2020 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

UNION OF INDIA &ANR vs ALFATOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 233

The Supreme Court of India has decided to examine whether the transfer of lease-hold rights constitutes a taxable supply under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime by clubbing together multiple cases pertaining to the same issue for joint hearing.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N. Ray, after examining the Deed of Assignment, relied on Gujarat Chamber of Commerce (supra) to hold that the transaction constituted a transfer of immovable property, and was thus, outside the scope of GST.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR vsKINGSSECURITY GUARD SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 234

The Supreme Court in a recent case dismissed the Special Leave Petition(SLP) against the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order quashing action of negative blocking on Electronic Credit Ledger [‘ECL’].

A two judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering SLP arose out of final judgment and order dated 04-12-2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi which was in favour of assessee, Kings Security Guard Services Private Limited. In absence of case for interference, the court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF CENTRAL TAXES vs M/S. GEMINI EDIBLES AND FATS INDIA LIMITED & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 235

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund rejection order. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the said order, for which the court refused to interfere and dismissed the same.

The Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar were considering the SLP arising from the final judgment and order dated 29-01-2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati which was in favour of assessee, Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited & Anr.

Sincere SecuritiesPrivateLimited & Ors. vs Chandrakant Khemka & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 236

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund rejection order. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the said order, for which the court refused to interfere and dismissed the same.

The Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar were considering the SLP arising from the final judgment and order dated 29-01-2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati which was in favour of assessee, Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited & Anr.

ABHISHEK KUMARKASHYAPETC vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 241

The Supreme Court, in an interim order yesterday, has taken up the jurisdictional issue of police officials with respect to the Goods and Services Tax Authorities to detain Goods in transit.

The issue of the case pertains to release of the goods which were seized by the police after registration of First Information Report.

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 242

The Supreme Court of India addressed barriers faced by persons with disabilities in completing digital KYC processes, following petitions by acid attack survivors and a blind individual who were denied access due to inaccessible biometric checks.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that all entities must comply with accessibility standards, conduct audits involving disabled users, establish grievance redressal mechanisms, and provide disability sensitization training, reinforcing constitutional rights under Article 21 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to promote financial inclusion.

KESARI NANDAN MOBILE vsOFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (2) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 243

The Supreme Court of India ruled that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, provisional attachment orders cannot be renewed or re-issued beyond one year, and such attachment cannot be used as a recovery tool. The case arose from Kesari Nandan Mobile’s challenge to provisional attachment orders issued after earlier ones had already lapsed by operation of law.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that the power of provisional attachment is draconian and must be strictly construed. The Court emphasized that Section 83(2) mandates cessation after one year without provision for renewal, and any contrary practice would amount to abuse of power. It declared the renewed attachment orders invalid and ordered immediate de-freezing of the appellant’s accounts while permitting the Revenue to continue investigations legally. The civil appeal was allowed.

M/S GODWAY FUNICRAFTSvs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 244

The Supreme Court of India directed the Andhra Pradesh HighCourt to reconsider a review petition challenging the imposition of 100% penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that fraud or willful concealment had not been established by the department. This arose after the Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed both the writ petition and the review petition, holding that the contention on penalty was not properly raised earlier.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan observed that the contention regarding the 100% penalty was raised in the writ petition memorandum and therefore deserved to be considered on merits in the review application. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the review petition for fresh adjudication, and allowed the appellant to raise all relevant contentions, including penalty and interest issues. The Court reserved liberty to revisit the penalty aspect if needed.

Bar Council Enrollment Fee Waiver Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice to BCI and BCUP

DEEPAK YADAV vs BARCOUNCIL OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 246

The Supreme Court of India, in a writ petition under Article 32, has taken up the issue of additional charges imposed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for the issuance of Certificate of Practice and ID cards. The petition challenges these levies as being contrary to Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, noting a prima facie conflict with the Court’s 2024 ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, issued notice to the Bar Council of India and the UP Bar Council. The matter has been posted for further hearing after replies are filed within four weeks.

Inadvertent Mistake in Shipping Bills cannot Deny MEIS Claim: Supreme Court says High Court fails to Address Statutory Entitlement

BM/S SHAH NANJI NAGSIEXPORTS PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 247

The Supreme Court has held that a clerical mistake in shipping bills cannot deprive a genuine exporter of benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS). Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt Ltd was denied benefits after its broker wrongly marked “No” in 54 shipping bills, despite later correction under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ, holding the exporter’s remedy lay against the broker.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria set aside the High Court’s ruling, quashed the PRC’s rejection, and directed the claim be processed within 12 weeks. Relying on precedents, the Court stressed that procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive entitlements under beneficial schemes and asked the government to adopt policy or technological reforms to prevent similar disputes.

Supreme Court Upholds Fees Collected by Electricity Regulators Are Not Liable to GST, Dismissing DGGI’s Challenge

ADDITIONAL DIRECTORDIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE vs CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORYCOMMISSION CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 248

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the Delhi High Court’s ruling that fees collected by electricity regulators such as the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) are not liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The dispute arose from show cause notices issued by GST authorities demanding tax on tariff, licence, and filing fees, which were treated as “support services” to electricity transmission and distribution.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s reasoning. The High Court had held that CERC and DERC’s statutory functions could not be split into adjudicatory and regulatory parts and, even if fees were considered, they were not received in the course of business.

Supreme Court upholds Setting Aside Service Tax Demands on Mining Operations and Site Formation Services unsustainable

COMMISSIONER OF GST ANDCENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S CORE MINERALS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 249

The Supreme Court upheld CESTAT’s decision quashing service tax demands of over ₹11 crore on Core Minerals, where the Department alleged liability under site formation and mining services. The Tribunal held that site preparation was incidental to mining and not separately taxable before June 2007.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, condoning a 151-day delay, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, agreeing with CESTAT that tax was duly paid and undervaluation claims were untenable under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Supreme Court to Decide if Chartered Flights are Passenger Transport or Aircraft Hire, Impacting GST ITC

THE COMMISSIONER OFSERVICE TAX vs M/S RELIANCE COMMERCIAL DEALERS LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 250

The Supreme Court will decide if chartered aircraft services qualify as “Non-Scheduled Air Transport (Passenger) Service” under Section 65(105)(zzzo) or as “Supply of Tangible Goods for Use (STGU)” under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The case stems from RCDL’s agreements with RIL, where the Revenue demanded over ₹42 crore in tax, treating the arrangement as STGU, while RCDL argued it was passenger transport with no transfer of control.

CESTAT, through S.K. Mohanty and M.M. Parthiban, ruled in RCDL’s favour, holding that even full-charter operations remain passenger services under DGCA permits, not STGU. The tribunal quashed the tax demands, and the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 9743/2025, will now decide the correct classification with significant GST implications.